jjramsey

SolitaryMan, you just blamed Amaleq13 for Malachi151's words.

Solitary Man

I did indeed! Error in editing, but fixed now. Thanks.

Malachi151

This is because you are talking about a language class, not history. A translation is not considered a secondary source, its a translated primary source.

Again, the distinction here is more about secondary sources. A secondary source is a COMMENTARY on another source. The Closing of the Western Mind is a secondary source for dealing with early Christian history. Primary sources would be things like the writings of Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, etc.

If you use English translations of those works when writing a book about early Christianity then that's not considered use of secondary sources, its considered use of primary sources. Use of The Closing of the Western Mind or the Catholic Encyclopedia would be considered use of a secondary source.

Solitary Man

Sigh, Classics is a subset of History. Are you in academia, Malachi151? Do you talk to professors about their criteria? My Egyptology professor would crucify me if I only used translations. And that's the history department!

But stick your fingers in your ears all you want, it doesn't change the fact that all translations are interpretations, and thus secondary to the actual primary source.

patcleaver

The site is a reveiw of a book named “Anthology of Classical Myth. Primary Sources in Translation.” The reviewer points out that the title is inaccurate. He says:

“students probably will observe that the phrase "primary sources" on the title page is appropriate only if it refers to ancient texts written in Greek or Latin as opposed to later transformations”

The use of the title “Protestant Reformation - Primary sources in translation” on some wacky Christian web site for “The Global Oneness Community” is not evidence of your claim.

I reviewed the referenced site.

The title of this book “Anthology Of Classical Myth: Primary Sources in Translation : with Additional Translations by Other Scholars and an Appendix on Linear B” was certainly not intended as a claim that a translation of primary sources is the primary source itself. Translations of primary sources are translations of primary sources – they are not the primary sources themselves.

Primary sources for an historical fact are original artifacts generated by witnesses or participants to the historical fact that are evidence of the historical fact; or recordings of witnesses or participants made immediately after an historical fact that are evidence of the historical fact.

Secondary sources for an historical fact are artifacts generated from (derived from) the “primary sources” for the historical fact; or recordings of witnesses or participants made after some historical fact that may be evidence of the historical fact.

The terms primary source and secondary source are not direct indications of how reliable these aources are as evidence. They just indicate the relationship between the source and the historical fact that they are evidence of. Some primary sources are are not very reliable and some secondary sources are highly reliable.

Photocopies, and pictures of a primary source for some historical fact is a secondary source for that historical fact. A copy of a “primary source” for some historical fact is a “secondary source” for that historical fact.

A translation of a primary source for some historical fact, is a secondary source for that historical fact.

A copy of the Magna Carta is not the Magna Carta and only the original Magna Carta is the primary source of what was included in the Magna Carta. A copy of the Magna Carter by a reliable copier might be very good evidence of what was included in the Magna Carta, but it is only a secondary source for what is included in the Magna Carta. A translation of the Magna Carta into French, by an expert French translator of that type of document, is not the Magna Carta, and is only a secondary source for what is included in the Magna Carta.

Can an honest academic researcher write a paper quoting the Magna Carta and cite the Magna Carta as the source when they really copied the quotes from a secondary source? Technically he shouldn't do it, but many academic researchers do it all the time.

It is not unusual, especially outside of academic articles, to refer to photocopies or photographs of primary sources as the primary sources, but its just sloppy use of language. If I have a copy of Plato’s Republic then I might say that I have Plato’s Republic, but of course I do not really have Plato’s Republic – all I have is a copy of Plato’s Republic.

Malachi151

All anyone has is a copy of Plato's Republic, hence by your definition there are no primary sources for 99% of the material in the world.

Here is more on the subject, but unfortunately none of it deals with translations. Again, everything I have seen calls translations of texts "primary sources in translation", but clearly a translation ISN'T a secondary source.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct...rysources.html

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Subject/History/RUSA/

http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/libguide/ps.html

http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html

http://library.uwsp.edu/guides/webtutorials/primary.htm

The definitions of "primary source" are a little fuzzy in all of these, but the definitions of "secondary source" is crystal clear in all of them:

Unfortunately none of this directly deals with translations, but clearly a translation isn't a secondary source.

Solitary Man

I have a copy of Plato's Republic in its original Greek. That is the primary source.

Arguing from silence, are we?

This is really pathetic, Malachi. You're using internet guidelines, all of which were written for undergrads or layman, none of which address translations.

Malachi151

Umm... you're using nothing at all. I'm not "using internet guidelines", I'm posting links to them because we are using the internet, what else can be done?

All that you have used is anecdotes.

I've never in my life heard the term secondary source applied to anything other than a reference book or history book, etc., that summarizes and reflects on other sources.

There is a huge difference between a translation and a commentary. A secondary source is a commentary on another source.

Edit: Additional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_text

http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Ba...ngSources.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...n-sources.html

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Subjec...tm/europe.html

Being a primary source has nothing to do with being "the" original copy, it has to do with the content of the material. A photocopy of a primary source is still a primary source. The account is what is primary, not the medium.

A translation of a primary source is a translation of a primary source, its not a secondary source, because its not a secondary account, its just a translation of the primary account. Is a translation as good as the account in the original language? No, of course not, but what is primary is the account.

If one wants to know what it was like to be in hiding in Germany during WWII one can use Anne Frank's diary (originally written in German I assume).

Reading it in German is getting an direct primary account.

Reading an English translation is still a primary account, though a little may be lost in translation.

Reading a history book about Anne Frank and people in hiding during WWII written by someone else is something completely different, that is a secondary source.

A translation of Anne Franks diary certainly can't be put into the same category as a textbook that talks about people in hiding in WWII.

Solitary Man

Umm... you're using nothing at all.

No, I'm using standard academic reference. But you're still confused.

Amaleq13

I understand and agree with the reasoning that concludes a translation cannot be considered "primary" (only if the original is extant?) but it still seems to me that a commentary is more distant from the original text than a translation and that it is a mistake to lump them together in the same category because that distinction is lost.

Certainly a translation is subject to more objective criticism because of the inherent structure of languages than a commentary which really has no such restrictions. I think that is the source of my desire to differentiate between them.