tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post452038256651086125..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Santis Pagnini translationWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-72318677835836961062007-04-17T07:39:00.000-07:002007-04-17T07:39:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I don't already own that book but I see...Anonymous, <BR/><BR/>I don't already own that book but I see that Pagnini is mentioned throughout. Thanks for mentioning it. <BR/><BR/>I had read this from a <A HREF="http://www.smu.edu/bridwell/specialcollections/prothroexhibit/coverdale.htm" REL="nofollow">description of the Coverdale version.</A> <BR/><BR/><I>One of Tyndale’s former assistants, Miles Coverdale, quickly prepared a new translation of the Bible into English based on the Vulgate, Tyndale’s work, the Latin translation of Santi Pagnini (1470–1541), the Zurich Bible, and the German translation of Martin Luther, rather than the original scriptural languages. </I><BR/><BR/>Peter, <BR/><BR/>I don't have BDB so that is interesting.<BR/><BR/>On the LXX, it has εν μεσω σκιας θανατου, which translates "in the midst of the shadow of death". <BR/><BR/>Luther, as you note, went with "darkeness", but Elberfelder and R-B, the "valley of the shadow of death". <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg007.htm" REL="nofollow">Pagnini's translation</A> was suppposedly highly regarded by Jewish scholars. <BR/><BR/><I>This 1528 Bible is the first printing of Pagninus' translation; a version esteemed for its closeness to the original tongues. Pagnini was criticized by reformationist Martin Luther for excessive literalism and "Jewish scholarship." This closeness to the Hebrew was well received by Jewish scholars, who judged Pagnini's translation as the only adequate Christian Latinate version of the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I would like to hear more about the Rashi vs Radak interpretation of tsalmavet. Which one is used in the New JPS, for example?Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-39458712323118474232007-04-17T03:59:00.000-07:002007-04-17T03:59:00.000-07:00I hasten to add that Coverdale himself confessed t...I hasten to add that Coverdale himself confessed to not using Greek or Hebrew.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-89564917184670509632007-04-17T03:54:00.000-07:002007-04-17T03:54:00.000-07:00Hardly. Luther depended heavily on Rashi, already...Hardly. Luther depended heavily on Rashi, already knew it meant darkness (see Rashi to Ps23:4); as indeed is clear from its uses in Job or Jeremiah. <BR/><BR/>Later linguistic work found other Semitic roots, but even without this knowledge, Rashi understood the correct meaning<BR/><BR/>In contrast, the King James translators relied heavily on Radak, and this verse is no exception. See Manfred R. Lehmann, "A New Interpretation of the Term שדמות", <I>Vetus Testamentum</I> 3:4 (Oct. 1953) pp. 361-371.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-68279281501004673652007-04-17T03:11:00.000-07:002007-04-17T03:11:00.000-07:00I don't think it is fair to suggest that translati...I don't think it is fair to suggest that translations which have "shadow of death" in Psalm 23:4 are based on the Latin. I was surprised to see that even the well known Hebrew lexicographers BDB states that Hebrew <I>tsalmawet</I> is "probably" a compound of <I>tsal</I> "shadow" and <I>mawet</I> "death". This corresponds to the LXX <I>skia thanatou</I> and the Latin which you have quoted - and the English translations you quote. But BDB note that most moderns (from their 1906 perspective) understand the word as not a compound but a variant of <I>tsalmut</I> from a root known in Arabic, Akkadian and Ethiopic. Now Luther seems to have taken the latter interpretation. But translators who take the former are not necessarily dependent on the Latin, or Greek, but only on a genuinely possible understanding of the Hebrew word.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-35477772157067778942007-04-17T01:36:00.000-07:002007-04-17T01:36:00.000-07:00Coverdale wrote in his Dedication in some of his e...Coverdale wrote in his <I>Dedication</I> in some of his editions that Pagnini was one of five sources he used. Coverdale didn't use any Greek or Hebrew sources. See Greenslade, <I>Cambridge History of the Bible</I>, p 148 (you can read the page on Amazon, if you don't already own it.)anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.com