davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:33 am
Here's the problem in a nutshell
(Which does not exist in your Thomas work you're lucky!)
I have a fully normalised translation, meaning that I had to pick
one single English word for each Coptic word. So instead of fooling around with multiple translations for one and the same word, as you obviously do, it was clear to me from the beginning that such is absolutely hopeless, inaccurate, and unacceptable
Although why is 'Christ' automatically 'Christian'? What is 'Christian'?
Option 1 - Translate 'anointed'
Problem 1 - everyone with knowledge of this stuff will know it would be 'messiah' or 'christ' in Hebrew/Greek, or some nomina sacra. They know this!
They're going to in their head read it as referring to the concept - defeating the object of translating anointed in the first place!
Problem 2 - people without knowledge will just gloss over it and not perceive the meaning at all 'what the heck is anointed?', but these same people have seen life of brian (messiah) and familiar with the term 'Christ'. It does them a disservice
It's totally inconsistent depending on the level of knowledge of the reader - a bad compromise
Surely not, that's ludicrous. Who's your audience? My audience is 99% "average Joe's" but regardless, the content of a text should fit its context. When in doubt, the more neutral definition of a word should be used
Option 2 - Translate 'Messiah'
That's ok, but the same word got translated 'Christ' in Greek and the concept developed with this particular, familiar name
So it's kind of ok, but also not, if the Odes are in the thick of this which they are
When in doubt, the more neutral definition of a word should be used
Option 3- Translate 'Christ'
Also ok, but it then misses out the Jewish name for the concept, and isn't in keeping with the Jewish flavour of the Odes as a whole
In the end using both seems like a good compromise that's the least problematic, but it doesn't I agree solve the problem entirely nor can it
When in doubt, the more neutral definition of a word should be used
Here, try this: my translation principles and guidelines:
The five translation principles are as follows:
• One word in - one word out
o For each unique Coptic word, one unique English word is picked. To illustrate this: the Lambdin translation uses two words in logion 65 - 'master' and 'owner' - for the exact same Coptic word ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ; and in logion 73 and 74 he translates that with 'Lord'; it is all very inconsistent. A translation must be precise: if a certain word is chosen as the translation of a word, don't pick another on translating its next occurrence. A true translation knows no synonyms
• One word out - one word in
o For each English word there can't be any more than one single Coptic word: if e.g. ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is translated with master, then there can be no other Coptic word that is also translated with master (Lambdin translates ⲥⲁϩ in logion 13 also with 'master'). If Thomas went through the trouble of picking a different word, then so must we. A true translation knows no homonyms
• Full normalisation is the basis for every good translation
o By combining these two goals, complete and full normalisation is achieved: the text is literally translated from Coptic into English with the absolute smallest number of changes possible; it is as close as we can get to the original text. Others might have claimed that feat, but this is the only way to achieve it: make an index of source as well as destination, and completely normalise both
• Emendations must be motivated at length
o The text says what it says, period. It is cryptic, enigmatic, riddling: this is not prose, it's poetry, and full of wordplay. If one doesn't understand it, then it is not the text that is causing the problem, and it surely should not be changed, most certainly not without a solid argumentation - let alone without not even as much as a footnote. Most "scholars" like to make the text wrong in order to make themselves right, and they don't even think twice about it, let alone that they supply motivation - although there are rare exceptions to that rule.
The general advice is to read Thomas without any agenda whatsoever; just pretend it is the very first text ever read
• Content determines context - not vice versa
o Thomas is unique. There is no other text like it: riddling, mystic, playing cat-and-mouse between I(H)S and the disciples, seemingly chaotic and disorderly, at first sight without much if any story that evolves. So, in order to interpret anything of what Thomas says in another context than his own, there must be unambiguous proof or evidence that said context was guaranteed to be created before his was
And what does Anointed mean really, and is that even the same as anointed? That is a very good question david, and as long as you can't answer it, 'anointed' is the only option.
When really in doubt, fall back on the literal meaning of the word: that is why my Thomas translation is so very wooden, it is a transliteration of the Coptic - because I just have no idea what it is all about, but also don't want to steer it into any direction whatsoever until I absolutely do under all circumstances. Is that the final translation? Most certainly not, but it is the very first, and the most rudimentary basis. I learned this from my Greek teacher (save for the normalised part) and have been using it ever since, and it works absolutely fantastic
I have a proposal for you: Make a Concordance of all the Syriac words, and line 'm up alfabetically.
Pick one single English word for each Syriac word, and play around till you have normalised the entire text. Yes that is a lot of work, but it is all worth it, because it will automatically drive you into the most neutral corner.
It gave me quite a few gems, such as e.g. the mustard seeds that are
few, not small. What you have / hold in your hand and gets taken away is not little, but
young. And so on: there is a great advantage to this disadvantage of doing all this work