DIσAMICA TRADUCERILτR BIBLICE Îσ RAPτRT CU AMBIGUITATEA CτσTEXTUALĂ A TERMENILOR. STUDIU DE CAZ: LEVITIC 11, 22 Adiὀa CHIRIδĂ Universitatea de Vest din Timi܈oara chiriladina@yahoo.com Alexandru GAFTON Uὀiveὄὅitatea „Alexaὀdὄu Iὁaὀ Cuza” diὀ Ia܈i algafton@gmail.com Abstract: The endeavor of translating the sacred text into a vernacular language faceὅ, amὁὀg ὁtheὄὅ, a pὄὁblem that dὁeὅὀ’t ὅtemὅ fὄὁm the ὅcaὄcity ὁf the taὄget laὀguage, the ambiguity ὁf the meὅὅage, ὁὄ the tὄaὀὅlatὁὄ’s competence in the source language, in general. There are several biblical fragments, especially in the Old Testament (e.g. the list of foods fit vs unfit for consumption, according to the Jewish law), that convey a perfectly understood general meaning while the exact designation of one ore more given word(s) from the original text has been lost – due to cultural, geographical and other types of differences between the civilization that has produced the text and the one that, at some point in history, receives it. Yet, the omission of such a given word in the process of translation does not represent a valid solution, since the text holds its sacredness by observing precisely its form. The close reading of various solutions applied by different translators in the process of rendering the form and content of Leviticus 11, 22, mainly from Greek and Latin into Romanian, from the 17 th to the 21 st century, leads to the conclusion that, among the translating options that have managed to preserve both the meaning and the formal integrity ὁf the ὅacὄed text, the iὀtuitive filliὀg ὁf a “blaὀk” iὀ a ὄὁw might have beeὀ a cὁmmὁὀ solution. Keywords: biblical translation, principles of translation, contextual ambiguity, cultural differences, Leviticus 11, 22. 1. Introducere. Făcîὀd abὅtὄacție de dὁmeὀiul îὀ caὄe ὅe deὄulează, tὄaduceὄea eὅte văzută ca uὀ pὄὁceὅ ὄealizat îὀ cîteva etape, la capătul căὄuia conținutul unui text într-o limbă-sursă este reformulat într-o limbă-țintă, făὄă pieὄdeὄea ὅubὅtaὀței semantice, stilistice ܈i de ὅtὄuctuὄă a textului ὁὄigiὀal. Evităm ὅă ὀe pὄὁὀuὀțăm aὅupὄa ὀumăὄului exact de etape necesare uὀei ὅtὄategii a tὄaduceὄii, îὀtὄucît ceea ce ὅe deὅfă܈ὁaὄă îὀtὄe receptarea textului-sursă (i.e. analiză – Nida & Taber 1982, p. 33) ܈i crearea unui echivalent (concept destul de ambiguu!) în limba-țintă (i.e. restructurare – Nida & Taber 1982, p. 33) – a܈adar, prima ܈i ultima etapă a procesului – pὁate fi ὅupuὅ uὀὁὄ ὅegmeὀtăὄi mai mult ὅau mai puțin riguroase, dar îὀtὁtdeauὀa ὅpecifice, îὀtὄ-uὀ demeὄὅ aὀalitic ce ὀu (mai) aὄe vὁie ὅă igὀὁὄe dὁmeὀiul îὀ caὄe ὅe deὅfă܈ὁaὄă actul tὄaduceὄii 1 . 1 σumai îὀtὄ-o viziune simplificatoare este acceptabil mecanismului tripartit al traducerii pὄὁpuὅ de εaὄiaὀὀe δedeὄeὄ (îὀ cadὄul a܈a-ὀumitei „teὁὄii a ὅeὀὅului”, dezvὁltată de