Spelling suggestions: "subject:"johan temper"" "subject:"johan semper""
1 |
Andreas Norrelius' Latin translation of Johan Kemper's Hebrew commentary on Matthew edited with introduction and philological commentaryEskhult, Josef January 2007 (has links)
This thesis contains an edition of the Swedish Hebraist Andreas Norrelius’ (1679-1749) Latin translation, Illuminatio oculorum (1749), of the converted rabbi Johan Kemper’s (1670-1716) Hebrew commentary on Matthew, Me’irat ‘Enayim (1703). The dissertation is divided into three parts. The focus lies on the introduction, which concentrates on issues of language and style. Andreas Norrelius’ Latin usage is elucidated on its orthographical, morphological, syntactic, lexical and stylistic levels. The features are demonstrated to be typical of scholarly Neo-Latin: Through a broad comparative synchronic approach, conspicuous linguistic phenomena are taken as points of departure for the exploration of scholarly Latin prose in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, especially the vocabulary and phraseology of philological, theological, and exegetical discourse. An intellectual historical background is outlined that places the ambitions and the achievements of the author and the translator as well as the texts used for comparison in their scholarly and cultural setting against a general European and specific Swedish background. Furthermore, the introduction deals with various questions relating to translation techniques and strategies. In particular, the method for the translation of biblical passages is analysed and put in relation to the humanistic Latin Bible translations. Moreover, the life and work of Johan Kemper is described in the light of all historical sources available. The life of Andreas Norrelius is also portrayed, and the questions about the date and authorship of the Latin translation are thoroughly addressed. The second part contains the editio princeps of the Latin translation. Andreas Norrelius’ own prolegomena about Kemper’s early life has been made accessible as well. The third part provides a philological commentary focused on the explanation of specific linguistic and exegetical questions in the text edited.
|
Page generated in 0.0269 seconds