{"title":"Despre notele marginale din cartea Ieșirea din manuscrisul de lucru (ms.70 B.A.R.) al traducerii Bibliei de la Blaj (1795)","authors":"Ana Catană-Spenchiu, Maria Moruz","doi":"10.51391/trva.2022.04.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The biblical translation made by Samuil Micu, known as the Blaj Bible (1795), has an impressive number of notes. Originally written on the edge of the text or overwritten, the glosses made by the scholar reflect his work site. A significant number of them in the working manuscript (MS.70, B.A.R.) managed to find their place in the secondary version copied for printing (MS.111 B.A.R.) and later in the printed form. Samuil Micu relies in his approach on the model offered by the Bucharest Bible (1688), on the Septuagint in the edition of Lambert Bos (1709), the source text of his translation, as well as on other texts consulted to elucidate some translation difficulties. We aim to follow, as far as possible, through a comparison of the second biblical book, the Exodus, from the two texts (MS.70) and the printed form (B1795) the way in which the notes written in the original form of the text can be found in the printed version, taking into account the revisions from the transcribed manuscript (MS.111).","PeriodicalId":39326,"journal":{"name":"Revista Transilvania","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Transilvania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51391/trva.2022.04.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The biblical translation made by Samuil Micu, known as the Blaj Bible (1795), has an impressive number of notes. Originally written on the edge of the text or overwritten, the glosses made by the scholar reflect his work site. A significant number of them in the working manuscript (MS.70, B.A.R.) managed to find their place in the secondary version copied for printing (MS.111 B.A.R.) and later in the printed form. Samuil Micu relies in his approach on the model offered by the Bucharest Bible (1688), on the Septuagint in the edition of Lambert Bos (1709), the source text of his translation, as well as on other texts consulted to elucidate some translation difficulties. We aim to follow, as far as possible, through a comparison of the second biblical book, the Exodus, from the two texts (MS.70) and the printed form (B1795) the way in which the notes written in the original form of the text can be found in the printed version, taking into account the revisions from the transcribed manuscript (MS.111).