1. For Studying the Typology, Theory, and Practice of Bible Translations

There are three translations of the Minor Prophets in Georgian. The oldest one derives from a textual form of the Septuagint that typologically belongs to the 4th century and was supposedly made in the same period. The translation is literal, which is most evident in the rendering of stylistic and grammatical Hebraisms. The translator intentionally emphasises the Hebraisms as a stylistic feature of the source, and, despite their extremely artificial character, consciously seeks to make them characteristic of the Georgian text as well. The literal rendering of idioms cannot be qualified as a learner’s mechanical translation; instead, it reflects the translator’s conscious principle. Sometimes the translator, emulating the style of the Vorlage, independently creates Hebraistic expressions absent from the particular context of the original.

Both the translator of the Georgian Minor Prophets and the Georgian language reflect a certain level of familiarity with the language of the Septuagint: equivalents for syntactic structures and idiomatic expressions, unusual for Georgian, had already been found and used with some regularity. Nevertheless, the language had not yet absorbed these unfamiliar linguistic features, and as a consequence of formal-literal approach, the text is at times not only artificial but also vague or even incomprehensible.

The character of a formal translation is likewise evident in the translator’s attitude towards the rendering of the vocabulary. Such approach is particularly apparent to the new concepts, special lexica, that can be observed through the etymological equivalents and individual word segments.

On the other hand, the old translation also has features of dynamic translation: the translator shows particular freedom while translating common vocabulary and ordinary sentences. In certain instances, Hebrew idiomatic expressions are rendered freely as well - through corresponding Georgian idioms or clarifying semantics.

Inconsistency and irregular use of different translation techniques are common features of early translations. It seems that the translators developed their principles while practicing. Still, the overall concept is clear: the Georgian translator of the Minor Prophets is oriented on the source text rather than on the Georgian language or the Georgian reader.

The second translation of the Minor Prophets was produced around the 12th century and is found in the second part of the so-called Gelathi Catena Bible - the section containing the Prophetic Books. The biblical text is preceded by the თავნი (κεφάλαια) of Hesychius of Jerusalem and the მიზეზი (ὑπόθεσις) of Theodoret. The scribe of the Gelathi Bible is either the translator himself or the person, who finalizes the work of other(s). The manuscript gives us an idea of the working process: the base text -  the old version, is revised against the Greek original. The revision goes so far that it results in a new translation. The reviser adheres to the principle of formal translation and applies it more consistently than the old translator. Besides, he not only reproduces stylistic and grammatical Hebraisms but also tries to systematically render Greek grammatical structures, e.g. participial and infinitive constructions, Greek prepositions, etc. Likewise, the formal method towards the lexica is applied with greater regularity. Such an explicitly formal translation technique is not used exclusively for the translation of the Scriptures. Even greater literalism is evident in the translation of the ὑπόθεσις, κεφάλαια and the Commentaries on Jonah. Here the translator shows no concern for the reader’s comprehension or for the natural flow of the Georgian language, seeking to create a specific language through deliberately technical translation method.

The third translation was likewise made in the 12th century. It is found in the Metaphrastic collections and serves as the lemma text for Theodoret’s commentaries on Micah and Amos. This translation goes even further in its lexical and grammatical calquing of the Greek original: it consistently uses non-finite verb constructions and forms neologisms. The translator’s motivations and reasoning are clearly illustrated in the marginal note signed as შეისწავე (= σημεῖον), where the translator or scribe remarks upon double negation in Greek. This observation points out not only the textual analysis underlined the work of the translation, but also shows, how unusual such a phenomenon was for the Georgian readers. It also illustrates that the translator deliberately choses to mirror the Greek and to justify his choice he provides precedents already found in Georgian. In sum, the translation of the lemma text and Theodoret’s commentaries reflect a broader trend among Georgian translators of that time - imitating Greek to create a special, theological language. The translator thus pursues an aim beyond mere fidelity towards the original or literal method of translation. This intention is further confirmed by a distinctive stylistic feature of Theodoret’s translation: while scrupulously adhering to the Greek source, the translator frequently rearranges word order - aiming not to conform to the syntactic nature of Georgian, but to create a mannered and elevated style. This stylistic feature gives the translation a certain resemblance to the original Georgian text -  the Life of King David the Builder, created in the first half of the 12th century.

To sum: the primary aim of all Georgian translators of the Minor Prophets is to reproduce the style of the original. The early and later translations consider different elements as stylistic feature of the original: the earliest translators focused primarily on rendering Hebraistic grammatical and stylistic expressions, whereas later translators expand the stylistic characteristics to the entire textual framework of the original.