MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392508811 · doi:10.1353/cbq.2024.a918382

Characterizing Old Greek Deuteronomy as an Ancient Translation by Jean Maurais (review)

2024· article· en· W4392508811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œCatholic Biblical quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Linguistic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyTranslation (biology)LiteratureHistoryClassicsArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Characterizing Old Greek Deuteronomy as an Ancient Translation by Jean Maurais Larry Perkins jean maurais, Characterizing Old Greek Deuteronomy as an Ancient Translation (JSJSup 203; Leiden: Brill, 2022). Pp. xiv + 324. €139/$167. This monograph is a revised version of Jean Maurais's 2020 dissertation (McGill University). In it, M. acknowledges that previous commentaries on Old Greek Deuteronomy (OG Deut) offer varying perspectives on the translator's approach to his task, as well as the relationship between the Vorlage and the target text. Although they make excellent contributions to understanding OG Deuteronomy, the attempts by each presentation to characterize OG Deuteronomy as a translation, in M.'s opinion, have various shortcomings. M. seeks to develop a more principled approach to understanding "the production milieu" of OG Deuteronomy more precisely (p. 3), focusing his attention on the text-as-produced. He argues that a Jewish translator produced OG Deuteronomy in Alexandria, Egypt, sometime in the first half of the third century b.c.e. Some evidence suggests that this translator knew OG Genesis and OG Exodus. Maurais regards current categories, such as "literal," or "free," or "faithful," often used to characterize OG Deuteronomy, as too imprecise, and their use often generates misleading impressions. Recourse to different models employed in the last decades to analyze various documents in the LXX, namely, Descriptive Translation Studies, Skopostheorie, and Poly-system theory, provide several methodological advances, because they affirm the complex nature of translation. They focus on the target audience and its cultural realities and various other factors influencing the nature of the resultant translation. M. argues that, in the case of OG Deuteronomy, part of its translational complexity involves identifying the Hebrew source text employed. The variety of Hebrew texts circulating in the third century b.c.e. makes it more challenging to discern whether differences between the resultant translation and extant Hebrew texts are due to the translator's initiative or show the influence of a Hebrew Vorlage that has not survived. In M.'s opinion, such discernment requires a "more flexible approach" (p. 8), one that does not use a priori assumptions to make such determinations. M. also indicates that Papyrus 848 particularly needs reevaluation as a witness to the text of OG Deuteronomy. In order to develop a characterization of OG Deuteronomy that is more principled and comprehensive, M. examines three texts (6:13–25; 25:1–12; and 32:1–9) "from the perspective of [their] production, employing a descriptive approach" (p. 9). He uses Gideon Toury's grid—described in Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995)—for characterizing translations, namely, function, process, and product, but also follows its adaptation by Cameron Boyd-Taylor in Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies (Biblical Tools and Studies 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2011). M. adjusts Boyd-Taylor's schema for describing a translation's profile, as well as employing the descriptors' "adequacy" (to define the "relationship to its source" [p. 9]) and "acceptability" (to define its relationship to its "target culture" [p. 9]). In order to plot the position of OG Deuteronomy's translation on these axes, M. analyzes "1) its linguistic character, pertaining to grammar and lexicon; 2) its textual-linguistic features, dealing with issues of coherence and cohesion; and 3) literary/cultural characteristics, that have to do with literary conventions and thematic or ideological values" (p. 9). His goal is to discern how the translator worked, by identifying his various strategies and "regulative norms, as [End Page 160] well as his preference values" (p. 9). In a later section, M. describes these as "translational norms," that is, "a set of shared assumptions that will govern what the ensuing product should look like" given the social context and cultural expectations involving such a translation (p. 68). He classifies these norms into three categories: "regulative norms," "conformity to target conventions," and "constitutive norms" (p. 82). He also evaluates whether they are systematic (primary), typical (secondary), or sporadic (tertiary) (p. 82). Maurais selects texts for analysis from Deuteronomy's paraenetic, legal, and poetic discourses and devotes a chapter to a close reading and analysis of each text segment using his method and summarizing the results. In...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œCatholic Biblical quarterlySame topicHistorical and Linguistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207