Source: Radich and Anālayo 2017

Radich, Michael and Anālayo Bhikkhu. “Were the Ekottarika-āgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 and the Madhyama-āgama 中阿含經 T 26 Translated by the Same Person? An Assessment on the Basis of Translation Style.” In Research on the Madhyama-āgama, edited by Dhammadinnā, 209-237. Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series 5. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 2017.

Assertions

Search:

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0125; Ekottarikāgama; 增壹阿含經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)	On the basis of a large set of diverse markers of translation style, Radich and Anālayo argue that the Ekottarikāgama T125 was not translated by the same person or group as the Madhyamāgama T26. They adduce evidence covering a wide range of phraseology, occurring very many times in each text. Overall, the Ekottarikāgama and the Madhyamāgama habitually and systematically differ from one another in the translation of many common names, terms, phrases and ideas. Given that the Madhyamāgama is our only reliable benchmark for the style of Saṅghadeva, this leads to the conclusion that the received ascription of the Ekottarikāgama to Saṅghadeva is incorrect. Edit		On the basis of a large set of diverse markers of translation style, Radich and Analayo argue that the Ekottarikagama T125 was not translated by the same person or group as the Madhyamagama T26. They adduce evidence covering a wide range of phraseology, occurring very many times in each text. Overall, the Ekottarikagama and the Madhyamagama habitually and systematically differ from one another in the translation of many common names, terms, phrases and ideas. Given that the Madhyamagama is our only reliable benchmark for the style of Sanghadeva, this leads to the conclusion that the received ascription of the Ekottarikagama to Sanghadeva is incorrect. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0125; Ekottarikāgama; 增壹阿含經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)

On the basis of a large set of diverse markers of translation style, Radich and Anālayo argue that the Ekottarikāgama T125 was not translated by the same person or group as the Madhyamāgama T26. They adduce evidence covering a wide range of phraseology, occurring very many times in each text. Overall, the Ekottarikāgama and the Madhyamāgama habitually and systematically differ from one another in the translation of many common names, terms, phrases and ideas. Given that the Madhyamāgama is our only reliable benchmark for the style of Saṅghadeva, this leads to the conclusion that the received ascription of the Ekottarikāgama to Saṅghadeva is incorrect.

Edit

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries