Traditions of Translation in Hebrew Literature

The centrality of translation in the history of Hebrew literature cannot be overstated. Scholars of Hebrew translation history often attribute the fact that Hebrew writers have steadily relied on translation for enriching and sustaining the Hebrew literary canon to Hebrew’s long-standing existence in a state of diglossia or multiglossia: a condition in which a community habitually uses two or more languages or several forms of the same language for different purposes. Jewish communities from antiquity to the present have generally used Hebrew alongside other tongues, even after Hebrew’s reinvention as a modern vernacular, its so-called revival, in the 20th century. It is possible that Hebrew served as a vernacular in antiquity, but sufficient proof of this possibility has never surfaced. Nevertheless, in late-19th-century Eastern Europe, Jewish thinkers and lexicographers began promoting the idea of resuscitating Hebrew. They often articulated this goal through the metaphor and practice of translation, borrowing from European cultures the notion that every modern nation is defined by a shared vernacular, while also translating into Hebrew a cornucopia of texts—scientific, poetic, journalistic, and philosophical. This enabled those late-19th- and early-20th-century Jewish thinkers to enrich, expand, and test the limits of Hebrew in a modern context. If the modern Hebrew literary canon includes the Hebrew Bible, as many Hebrew writers and scholars believe, then it consists of the most frequently translated and widely circulated text in the world. Yet Biblical Hebrew differs from later formations of the language, and traditions of biblical translation in and outside the Jewish world call for separate bibliographies. The following bibliography focuses on central theoretical questions relating to traditions of translation in Hebrew literature, foregrounding the intensifying debates on Hebrew’s spiritual and national status from the 19th century onward. Translation has often served as a unique arena for such debates, acting as a vehicle for transforming Hebrew literature from within, while allowing for its venturing out. It has frequently allowed its practitioners to define the imaginary boundaries of Hebrew literature and delineate the contours of Hebrew culture as primarily Jewish-national.

From Chronology to Theology

In the late 1580s, a controversy erupted that would devastate Broughton’s career and haunt him for the rest of his days. The source of this agitation was a short chronological pamphlet, A Concent of Scripture, which was published by Broughton in 1589 and attacked in the lectures of the Oxford theologian John Rainolds. This chapter explores how this seemingly unassuming work could provoke such intense conflict, locating the roots of the dispute in the overlap between the dynamic but difficult world of biblical chronology and the combative arena of academic theology. Influenced by the damning verdicts passed by Broughton’s antagonists, modern historians have dismissed Broughton’s Concent as motivated solely by zealous biblicism, a reaction against the daringly innovative work of the chronologer Joseph Scaliger, whose methods were upheld by Rainolds. In contrast, this chapter details the rich tradition of reformed Hebraism in which Broughton’s chronological work was situated, and outlines the manifold disciplines, from the study of rabbinic literature to biblical translation, to which it contributed. It argues that at the heart of this controversy lay not technical questions about chronological method, but larger questions about biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. It also begins to illustrate some of the dangers that faced the early modern scholar who attempted to traverse the perilous terrain of biblical history, by showing how Rainolds’ lectures and the controversy they propagated made dangerous associations between Broughton’s work and crypto-Catholicism.

From Chronology to Translation

Against the backdrop of the still-smouldering controversy over his chronological work, Broughton began to break down his contentious vision of biblical history into the raw elements needed for a new English Bible. The first signs of this were his translations of the book of Daniel into English (1596) and Latin (1599), two remarkable publications that illustrate not only the complexity and creativity that could characterize godly attitudes towards biblical translation, but also how Broughton’s longstanding interest in anti-Catholic polemics was beginning to morph into a more fraught concern with anti-Jewish controversy. Using these translations as well as Broughton’s contemporaneous debate with Cambridge professor Edward Lively over the interpretation of Daniel, this chapter argues that Broughton’s interests were drawn towards translation partly as a natural outgrowth of his interest in chronology, but partly also out of a growing desire to disseminate the findings of cutting-edge polyglot biblical scholarship to as wide an audience as possible. Drawing on previously unexamined manuscript evidence, this chapter concludes by reconstructing Broughton’s earnest but ill-fated campaign for a new translation throughout the 1590s, covering the personal, political, and confessional factors that led to Broughton’s calls remaining unanswered

Aquila

Subsequent to its inclusion in Origen’s Hexapla, the text of the biblical translation ascribed to Aquila, who according to both patristic and rabbinic testimony was a convert to Judaism, has been transmitted only fragmentarily in Greek. Isolated readings from Aquila’s version are cited in Greek in the margins of LXX manuscripts and in patristic works, but also in Hebrew translation in rabbinic literature. The discoveries of the Cairo Genizah and of the Hebraizing recension reflected in the Naḥal Ḥever Minor Prophets scroll have made possible a fresh look at Aquila’s translational approach and the transmission of his version, as well as the history of its reception among both Jews and Christians.

A Cycle of Polemics and Translation Projects

This chapter presents the history of a cycle of theological polemics of which Jadid al-Islam’s work was the last link. This cycle starts in Mughal India with the work of the Jesuit missionary Jerome Xavier, followed by responses in Iran and counter-responses in Rome, under the auspices of the missionary congregation of Propaganda Fide. The chapter also presents the history of biblical translation projects in Arabic and Persian, which were directly linked to these polemics, including Jadid al-Islam’s own biblical Persian translation and commentary. A general overview about other polemical works in Iran into the nineteenth century is also provided.

Muslim-Christian Polemics in Safavid Iran

This book is a study on the history of polemical exchanges between Catholic missionaries and Muslim ʿulama in Safavid Iran. The book is centred around the figure of ʿAli Quli Jadid al-Islam, a Portuguese missionary who embraced Islam and worked as a court translator for Shah Sultan Husayn. The book explores the context in which he worked, focusing on broader conditions of Muslim-Christian relations in Iran, and examining his interreligious polemical writings. The latter, conceived in response to cycles of polemics linking Iran to Rome and Mughal India, adapted the historical conventions of polemical writing to serve the specificities of a Shiʿi Iranian context. The book contributes to debates on intellectual history of Shiʿism, confessionalisation in the early modern Middle East, Conversion, biblical translation projects and commentaries, and Muslim-Christian relations in the early modern period.

Przekład komentarza biblijnego jako ciąg decyzyjny tłumaczenia funkcjonalnego – studium przypadku

The Functional Translation of Biblical Commentaries as a Decision- Making Process – a Case Study The article is a case study exploring the translation of one biblical commentary representing a specific type of texts from the threefold perspective of a translator, translation theorist and translation trainer. The Author utilizes a concept of the functional translation by C. Nord, an idea of the translation as a decision-making process by J. Levý, and principles of the translation of scientific texts by Z. Kozłowska. Selected aspects of translating of a contemporary English commentary on the Gospel of Luke into Polish are investigated, including the following decision-making levels: selection of an appropriate Polish translation of the Bible, necessary adjustments of the chosen biblical translation, decisions related to intertextuality of the Bible, lexical choices. Problems concerning other functions of the source text, apart from its exegetical function, are also discussed as well as solutions concerning quotations, references and the paratext. Furthermore, information on bibliographic sources useful for translators of biblical and patristic texts was presented.

The Rise of Coptic

Coptic emerged as the written form of the Egyptian language in the third century, when Greek was still the official language in Egypt. By the time of the Arab conquest of Egypt in 641, Coptic had almost achieved official status, but only after an unusually prolonged period of stagnation. This book traces this complex history, showing how the rise of Coptic took place amid profound cultural, religious, and political changes in late antiquity. For some three hundred years after its introduction into the written culture of Egypt, Coptic was limited to biblical translation and private and monastic correspondence, while Greek retained its monopoly on administrative, legal, and literary writing. This changed during the sixth century, when Coptic began to penetrate domains that were once closed to it, such as literature, liturgy, regulated transactions between individuals, and communications between the state and its subjects. The book examines the reasons for Coptic's late development as a competing language—which was unlike what happened with other vernacular languages in Near Eastern Greek—speaking societies-and explains why Coptic eventually succeeded in being recognized with Greek as an official language. The book sheds new light on the role of monasticism in the growing use of Coptic before the Arab conquest.