31–40 of 183 posts
“Traduttore, traditore” (“translator, you traitor!”). Translating ancient texts is hard enough given the complex historical and cultural contexts. When it comes to religious texts, though, the level of complexity grows exponentially, especially given how their contexts widen. On an unrelated note, this always vexes me: > By contrast, the two faiths’ cousin—Christianity I get how one can see a relation between Judaism…
But oh well it’s a nice topic. Our languages constantly evolve as time goes on yet the originals stay the same. Who knows maybe AI will be helpful too here one day.
I'm more curious about the first word in that article - is "dodgy" becoming accepted as part of the US English vernacular now? It's particularly common in Aus English but I usually have to find alternatives when conversing with Usonians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I know that, but it doesn’t offer anything else than a claim to authenticity, by posing as a continuation, while the previous revelations are then discarded. The mentions of Biblical persons and events, as I hinted in the previous comment, are cultural rather than theological, and can’t be used to establish theological continuity, no matter how hard the Ismaelite genealogy is pressed.
entire islamic theology is based on Abraham and his actions, the rituals in the holy journey of Hajj and Umrah are all repeats of actions of Abraham and his family.
In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified.
Rather superficial article about the subject. Whole books are written about the subject or why one translation is better than another. (A quick search will find you people telling you not to use the King James translation.) The article does not even touch upon culture things, such like how to deal with a translation for a culture where pigs are kept as pets or cattle, while in the old testament they are considered as…
> (A quick search will find you people telling you not to use the King James translation.) Most of them are bad reasons - for example, one very popular criticism is the claim that KJV invented the usage of the word "unicorn" in the Bible, and it's actually a wild ox. But it was traditionally translated that way from the time of the Latin Vulgate, and nobody knows for sure what a re'em is. [Ed - it turns out the Septu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should they be translated then? Leaving then unchanged would communicate the fact that the word has no direct translation. English has borrowed and invented lots of words which have no direct meaning, they just are a subtle way to express a concept - e.g. "grok"
A lot of work in Bible translation over the millennia has been motivated by translators’ desire to make the most important document in history, the stuff of salvation and life itself, accessible to the common man. Luckily, there is room in the world for (and demand for) countless approaches to Biblical translation, from the hyper‐literal to the simple paraphrase. Any person who’s participated in a group Bible study (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a stretch at all. In the same way that the New Testament (Christianity) extends the Old Testament (Judaism), the Koran considers itself a part of the same lineage. Moses, Jesus etc are prophets in Islam, and Jews and Christians are "people of the book" and accorded special protections.
Abraham is considered the first prophet in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam hence Abrahamic .
And in terms of being the first, that’d be Adam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
entire islamic theology is based on Abraham and his actions, the rituals in the holy journey of Hajj and Umrah are all repeats of actions of Abraham and his family.
Yep it’s a very narrow focus on one person, and disregards the millennium of Judaic and Christian traditions that followed on from Abraham. In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified.
They all share the same god and the same origin story, and even share religious sites. Compare them to any other religion, and they are quite close.
Regarding “hard choices” when translating: what about not making them? If the goal isn’t to editorialize on purpose, could one just write, “[young girl|virgin]” when faced with what the “correct” translation is supposed to be?
“Traduttore, traditore” (“translator, you traitor!”). Translating ancient texts is hard enough given the complex historical and cultural contexts. When it comes to religious texts, though, the level of complexity grows exponentially, especially given how their contexts widen. On an unrelated note, this always vexes me: > By contrast, the two faiths’ cousin—Christianity I get how one can see a relation between Judaism…
Islam incorporates Jesus, Moses and Abraham. The continuity is direct, both historically and theologically. The histories of Christianity and Islam are wrapped up in one another. After all, the Arab conquests took what europe called the “near east”, which had previously been Hellenized and Romanized. Whatever perceived gulf lies between Islam and Christendom politically, I don’t think the history bears it out.
Theological continuity would mean that Islam accepts and extends, ie that Jesus is the anticipated Messiah subsequently crucified and risen, not to mention accepting Jesus as the son of God and final prophet.
I have yet to find any Islamic faction that holds that to be true :)