> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ideally a particular English word or phrase
> (e.g. periphrastic English verbs using auxillaries for a single Greek verb)
> *is* an exact equivalent for the original if one can somehow be sure that
> the translation is exactly what the author meant by using the particular
> word in the particular context.
Aye, there's the rub! And how should we indicate the degree of non-total
consensus on a translation committee over "what the author meant by using
the particular word in the particular context?" Well, at least we should
have those footnotes indicating "OR ... " to recognize minority viewpoints.
Or we could do as did the UBS committees with the Greek text: use A, B, C,
and D to indicate relative consensus. Better beware, however, of putting
that text in red, pink, gray, or black! Perhaps there are now enough
translations "out there" in the public domain for people to realize that
translation is not an exact science, as well as that the translations
themselves are based upon a reconstituted Greek text which itself has been
established by something less than an exact science.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com