Date: Thu May 15 1997 - 03:53:00 EDT
Another thought on the discussion brought on by R. Lattimore's translation.
By the way, I've enjoyed his Homer & other translation. There is a
fundamental paradox for the serious student who wishes to use a translation
as a tool for understanding the NT. If the translation was done by a
theologian, is it free of the translator's theological bias? If it was done
by a classicist (or by someone else who is not a stakeholder in the
theological understanding that might result in the mind of the user), did the
translator exercise sufficient diligence, even reverence, toward the text?
I'd be interested in comments re how translators (both those with & those
without a theological agenda) assure the integrity of their work.
As to Lattimore, I seem to recall in his introduction that he did not involve
himself in any textual matter. His work was simply a translation. Did he
intend it for use as a serious tool for the serious Bible student? I don't
know. Revelation can be appreciated and enjoyed independently of its
theological impact. It is a wonderful story full of action and graphic &
vivid images. I can see how that would be "easy" to translate in spite of
grammatical irregularities. What the serious bible Bible student has to
grapple with are the more subtle theological implications, to the
understanding of which the grammatical "irregularities" may (or not) be
Let me know, folks, if these are legitimate concerns or if I am just being
BA, Classical Languages & Literature
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:15 EDT