Have you read the Bible?

smacl

Fourier wrote: »

Also I think it discounts how rarely translations of your type are actually done. They're virtually non-existent outside of academic translations of ancient texts.

The context of this discussion however is largely academic translations of ancient texts. A specific point was raised that to read the Koran without understanding classic Arabic was essentially a futile exercise. While no doubt a certain amount will be lost in translation, and reading an annotated translation will be a more laborious task than reading the original for a native speaker, the bulk of the content can be communicated in tact. The reason why we'd read a translation is also important. If it is purely for pleasure, we want all of the humour, rhythm, allusion etc.. to be present without needing copious footnotes to explain it to us. If it is for more academic reasons, we're more interested in what the text is trying to convey than how well it reads. In the case of the OP, I imagine he'll be wading through a fair amount of heavily annotated translation one way or another, and hope he finds value in doing so.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

A general translation of the ideas is always possible, but something which reflects the original in every aspect is hard to impossible - for much the same reason as an oil painting rendered in chalk or a watercolor in pencil will never fully reflect the original either.

True, but then your appreciation of that oil painting will vary significantly from mine, and a full appreciation of what the artist intended may require further explanation (interpretation) and even then open to speculation. As a medium for communication, painting is not really comparable to the written word, as what is communicated lies in the relationship between the viewer and the painting. The difficulty with translation is that someone else is parsing the text and representing it to us as they understand it and can best express it. It is quite probable that if we were to learn the language of the original text to avoid having it translated for us, the understanding we would arrive at would be considerably inferior to that provided by a good translation. The rationale here is that the translator is liable to have vastly superior language skills, that being their occupation, and better knowledge of the context of the original text.

So if I look at Mondrian's Broadway Boogie Woogie, whether its the original oil or a crayon facsimile is largely moot, as to me it is just a bunch of coloured rectangles either way. I rely on someone else to tell me it is great art, and even then I don't entirely trust them

Fourier

smacl wrote: »

The context of this discussion however is largely academic translations of ancient texts....text is trying to convey than how well it reads.

True, I had forgotten the context of the discussion, where it probably matters less*. I had drifted to discussing translation in general.

smacl wrote: »

It is quite probable that if we were to learn the language of the original text to avoid having it translated for us, the understanding we would arrive at would be considerably inferior to that provided by a good translation. The rationale here is that the translator is liable to have vastly superior language skills, that being their occupation, and better knowledge of the context of the original text.

I would somewhat agree with this and somewhat not. I only know two other modern languages (no ancient ones) and have read some literature in annotated form and then read the original. A good translator will convey things that you would miss, even when you learn the language, for the reasons you mention.

However I've always found there was the correct flow and "feeling/mindset" of the language the wasn't well conveyed. Really this comes down to the semantic range of words being different and the translation studies monographs I've read (only two to be honest) consider this the main reason translations cannot be perfect/totally accurate. Part of learning a foreign language well is essentially imbibing the semantic range of the target language's words. So if you learn a foreign language reasonably well, you will still pick up on things even a great translation won't convey well.

(Perhaps you have felt different with foreign languages you may have learned)

That said, again this relates to translation in general (and literary effects in particular) it's not important* in the original context mentioned in this thread.

*Although I still must point out that Malcolm C. Lyons, probably the best living translator of Classical Arabic, states in his introduction to the Arabian Nights( Volume 1) that he feels some elements are missing in his translation. The text is incredibly heavily annotated. So that is a direct admission from a world expert in Classical Arabic that his heavily annotated academic work on the Arabian Nights still misses things, so I think the point is still somewhat relevant for the Quran.

Fourier

Peregrinus wrote: »

But after the catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the priestly class, Judaism went through a process of disintegration and consolidation, and what resulted was the rabbinic Judaism that we know, that to some extent defined itself in opposition to Christianity. The result was that appproaches to scripture, or readings of scripture, not favoured by Christians came to be favoured by Jews, while those favoured by Christians tended to be rejected by Jews.

Very true. Not only is this a property of later Rabbinical Judaism, even the Tanakh only reflects or strongly reflects a specific viewpoint of the religion.

For instance we know there were anti-Temple viewpoints in Judaism well into the 1st Century AD. Either those who felt local alters to Yahweh should be permitted or who considered the Temple priesthood to be corrupt. A more extreme form of the first case is known to have existed, i.e. not only should local alters exist, only they should exist. Declaring a specific place, the Temple, as being the only place on Earth where Yahweh will descend to hear his followers is blasphemous. This later viewpoint was held among some early followers of Jesus (eg the Stoning of Stephen, where Stephen expresses this viewpoint) and possibly by Jesus himself.

Of course the Tanakh, being constructed by the Priestly caste, is incredibly pro-Temple in most of its books.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

However I've always found there was the correct flow and "feeling/mindset" of the language the wasn't well conveyed. Really this comes down to the semantic range of words being different

Reminds me of my time in Holland.

I couldn't understand the logic behind the expression "en veer op je reet steken" (as in "he's sticking a spring up your arse". I knew it meant something like "someone secretly making a fool of you" but it didn't make any sense.

Until I discovered that the Dutch word "veer"also means feather

smacl

@OP, just started into 'Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman' which I'm enjoying and might be a contender for your list. Possibly a bit controversial for a religiously minded OH but interesting stuff nonetheless.

hank scorpio89

Nah I'm not a huge fan of fiction.