Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Translating the Bible is a vexed task

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 183 posts

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#91

Post by User23 »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #4

“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…

> I get how one can see a relation between Judaism and Christianity.

That relation exists but it’s vastly overstated by many people today. Christianity and Talmudic Judaism are both in some sense successors to the old Hebrew religion that the Romans ended by destroying the Temple, but they draw very little from each other. In fact the direct predecessors of today’s rabbis, the Pharisees, are already portrayed in a less than flattering light in the New Testament.

Islam on the other hand positions itself as the successor faith to both Judaism and Christianity. And frankly, nowadays, I’d say that’s the closest relation those two faiths have.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#92

Post by shakna »

lolinder wrote: post #83
shakna wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, size and widespread acceptance. The use of the word "cult" there, isn't an insult. It just speaks to the smaller breakoff groups that form. Protestantism began as a cult. It is no longer. Sort of like how creeks spring from every river.

Given that this is a conversation about Islam, this whole subthread seems like a distraction. By any metric of "size and widespread acceptance", Islam is a major religion whose claims should be treated as seriously as any other (which doesn't necessarily mean they should be taken at face value).

Yes, it is a major religion... But if it came from the other religions, it began as a cult. As all religions do. Abraham's story, the origin of his religion, began as a cult. And that's the way I used the term in my paragraph that began this subthread.

The focus on the word "cult" is a distraction. The concentration is on whether two religions should really be considered part and parcel, when they have diverging core theology, diverging core tenants, and differing historical origins.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#93

Post by moloch-hai »

Faithfulness to an imagined "original text" is often asked for, often attempted, but wholly futile. We have no such "original text". There never was any such "original text".

Read it in the form most entertaining, and you will experience it in the purest form still possible. Seek precision, and you will go badly astray. Anything that turns on the exact meaning of a word will be forever ambiguous. There can be no useful list of such passages or words. You must assume all are.

Disagreement about meaning is unavoidable and mistaken. Your opinion about true meaning fails in exact proportion with your confidence in it. Extracting "true meaning" is no different from Newton's attempts at divination by versal numerology.

You may evaluate others' opinions in this way. The more confidence they have in their interpretation, the less competent is their opinion.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#94

Post by User23 »

verbify wrote: post #26
MonkeyClub wrote: post #4

“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…

I think Judaism and Islam have more in common with each other than with Christianity. Christianity's belief in the divinity of Jesus is shared by neither other religion. The Jewish jurist Maimonides ruled that Christians were idol worshipers because of their belief in the trinity and Muslims were not (Menachem Meiri rules otherwise). But more than that, in terms of practice, Muslims and Jews share a great deal. Prayi…

> Muslims and Jews share a great deal. Praying in a certain direction. Praying several times a day. Specific dietary requirements, including banning pork.

Christian churches face the East. Christian clerics and devout laypersons pray the Liturgy of the Hours daily. Finally many Christians observe religious dietary requirements involving fasting and abstinence from meat.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#95

Post by mistrial9 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #71
MonkeyClub wrote: post #15

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.

> posing as a continuation, while the previous revelations are then discarded. Can't the same argument be raise for Christianity? I'm sure at the time of Jesus he saw himself as rectifying Jewish practice (and of course there are the passages where he says that the old laws are still in force), but pretty quickly Christianity was modified and sold to gentiles (thanks to Paul, who never met Jesus and wrote 13* of the…

Jungian here - with some small comparative religion training.. multiple primary "motiff" in the Christian stories are repeats of older themes but changed..

for the non-Bible side, lots of Germanic and Scandinavian folk stories have been rewritten as Christian-themes too

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#97

Post by throw310822 »

jkepler wrote: post #65
sofixa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> They all share the same god ... Except that they don't share the same god. The Christian God is triune, one God existing in the three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Jews and Muslims both reject. Further, though Judaism and Christianity agree that the only true creator God, YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah according to Christianity), has revealed himself in deeds and words, Islam says that his name is…

The entire concept of "sameness" doesn't make sense when talking about objects that are unknowable or just non-existent. For example, two persons can describe in different terms a real object (say, a chair): in that case, the object exists independently from its descriptions and the two persons can eventually agree on the fact that there is indeed one object they were both looking at. But for objects that are unknowable or non-existent, it is the description that defines the object- and each description, unless entirely equivalent to the others, defines a different object.

Therefore the idea that Abrahamic religions relate to the same God can only make sense from a perspective of faith.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#98

Post by tasty_freeze »

wizofaus wrote: post #29

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.

I'm an american. It isn't common, but it is common enough that when it is used it doesn't stick out as an out of place word. I use it myself once in a while.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#99

Post by athorax »

moloch-hai wrote: post #93

Faithfulness to an imagined "original text" is often asked for, often attempted, but wholly futile. We have no such "original text". There never was any such "original text". Read it in the form most entertaining, and you will experience it in the purest form still possible. Seek precision, and you will go badly astray. Anything that turns on the exact meaning of a word will be forever ambiguous. There can be no usef…

"You may evaluate others' opinions in this way. The more confidence they have, the less competent is their opinion."

Rare self burn, nice.

Post reply on HN