The section in chapter three of JCM brought up some interesting questions for me. Because Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God, revealed to his Prophet, how do they respond to the fact that men were the ones to actually write the text? Is there any acknowledgment of the possibility of error in writing and translating? This chapter raised at least four processes in which the original text or original oral word could have been distorted:
1.) Oral transmission
2.) Pulling together the multiple versions of oral tradition into text
3.) Adding consonants to the text (if a word was misinterpreted this could change the meaning)
4.) Translating the text from Arabic to English and other languages.
How do Muslims respond to these problems? The same could be asked for Jews and Christians, as the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts underwent the same processes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was recently having a conversation with a foreign student at our very own Wheaton College. We surpassed the small talk into something a little deeper than that. After exchanging major declarations, decided to discuss each other’s studies. I explained to her that I was majoring in religion and that I was fascinated by its multi-facetted inter-disciplinary studies. To me, religion is about more than belief; it is about belief, culture, and language, as well as sociological and psychological components all encompassed into a greater understanding of how we relate and coexist as humans on an international level.
We shared a common interest in classic literature; and after discussing our major concentrations, we went on to discuss the greatest (arguably) work of literature in history: The Bible. Initially we discussed the basic teachings, but after a long discussion, we came to the conclusion that the bible –as with any other fine literary work, is to be read in its original language. We discussed language in literature, consistently agreeing that to truly understand any work, it must be read in its original language. We discussed the meaning of the phrase, “lost in translation” and realized that any translation depends on the reaction of the translator. I agree with the questions you posed, and insist that they be applied to the books of all applicable religions, and furthermore to the translations of any works of classic literature. Is it possible to recreate God’s words in a language different from that in which they were delivered?
It really depends on how religions understand the nature of revelation. You will find that Islam and Christianity have very different assumptions about the translatability of "the Word of God." Part of that has to do with the fact that the one sees the word of God "incarnated" in a text (albeit recited orally) - the Qur'an, while the other describes the word of God made flesh in the person(ality) of Jesus. Persons,as opposed to texts, can convey their messages in a variety of ways and languages; we do know of people who are fluent in many tongues. However, a classic text is embodies its distinctive message in the particular form, style, and language it was composed. It seems that in the "word made flesh," the speaker is more dynamic and flexible, while revealed texts require the hearer to be more dynamic and flexible - if that makes sense.
It really depends on how religions understand the nature of revelation. You will find that Islam and Christianity have very different assumptions about the translatability of "the Word of God." Part of that has to do with the fact that the one sees the word of God "incarnated" in a text (albeit recited orally) - the Qur'an, while the other describes the word of God made flesh in the person(ality) of Jesus. Persons,as opposed to texts, can convey their messages in a variety of ways and languages; we do know of people who are fluent in many tongues. However, a classic text is embodies its distinctive message in the particular form, style, and language it was composed. It seems that in the "word made flesh," the speaker is more dynamic and flexible, while revealed texts require the hearer to be more dynamic and flexible - if that makes sense.
Post a Comment