A series of articles on Bible translation and mission has been posted on another website. They would be well worth your reading. Comments on them would be welcome here.
HT: Kouya Chronicle
Ideas for improving English Bible translations. Post translation problems and improvement suggestions under Versions after reading Welcome. Comments on blog posts are welcomed if they follow our guidelines. Visit our Bookshelf.
<
On translations of the Qur'an,
ReplyDeleteIn 1143, the first Latin translation (in fact, a paraphrase, really) of the Qur'an was done by Robert of Ketton (fl. 1136-57) in 1143; exactly four centuries later, this very translation (which included a refutation) of the Qur'an was printed in Basel at the instigation of Martin Luther. (From there came the translations of the Qur'an into the vernacular European languages: first in Italian, then German, then Dutch, and only then in English by George Sale in 1734, which was, a translation that is very different from Ketton's - free from polemical motives and was more accurate, textually). There was another early Latin translation of the Qur'an, and it was produced by Mark of Toledo (fl. 1193-1216) in 1211; although more literal than Ketton's, it was much less widely known. Both of these medieval 'translations' were produced at the instigation of the various archbishops (including Peter the Venerable) who thought it would be useful to Latin Christians attempting to convert Muslims as part of the mobilization of arms and opinion, following the Christian Reconquest of Muslim Spain. Living Islam
I should clarify
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I went off on a tangent. However, a recent translation of the meaning of the Qur'an that is definitely intended for the faithful has been done for Tamazight. In Algeria Tamazight has been recognized as a national lg. This is quite a recent development, however. I don't know if this is a bilingual edition or not. It is in the Arabic writing system.
Is "Christianity" a religion of translation of its holy book or does that describe Protestantism?
ReplyDeleteSanneh refers just to Christianity. He notes that the Bible has been translated from the earliest days of the church long before "protestantism" was a sector of Christianity. Some of the most valuable translations of the Bible for textual criticism are into Ethiopian, and languages spoken not far from Palestine. Of course there was translation into the Latin Vulgate.
Sanneh sees this dynamic of the church, from its earliest time, as a important factor in how Christianity has related to other cultures and languages.
Has anyone actually read his book? Is it any good?
ReplyDeleteYes, I think a good number have. My wife and I have. It is good. It's important to have the perspective of an African scholar on Bible translation in Africa. Sanneh does a good job describing some translation work there which truly was clothed well in the vernacular language patterns.
The book is an easy read.
While I will freely admit that I haven't read Sanneh yet (and probably won't before I get back from sabbatical), I wonder about his take on the significance of translation in the history of the Reformation. While 16th and 17th century Western Hemisphere Catholic missionaries from Canada to Argentina were happily translating both Scripture and Liturgy -- often in defiance of edicts from their governments in Europe -- the translation of Scripture in Europe was associated with the Protestant side of the Reformation, largely because of Luther. A failure to take the politics of European Christianity full into account will distort the picture unduely.
ReplyDeleteOf particular interest to this blog is the fact that this was the time in which the KJV was translated, and these influences helped shape it. There was no small amount of both theological slant and politics (secular and religious) in the process which created what too many Evangelicals think of as the only valid form of God's word. (A handy introduction to this history is God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson.)
Richard wrote: "While 16th and 17th century Western Hemisphere Catholic missionaries from Canada to Argentina were happily translating both Scripture and Liturgy -- often in defiance of edicts from their governments in Europe -- the translation of Scripture in Europe was associated with the Protestant side of the Reformation, largely because of Luther."
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat ironic that at about the same time, in a comment on another post, I was quoting C.S. Lewis as follows:
The history of the English Bible from Tyndale to the Authorised Version should never for long be separated from that European, and by no means exclusively Protestant, movement of which it made part. ... those who are divided by the bitterest theological hatreds gladly learn from one another. Tyndale accepts corrections from More: Rheims learns from Geneva: phrases travel through Rheims on their way from Geneva to Authorised. Willy-nilly all Christendom collaborates. The English Bible is the English branch of a European tree.
In other words, Lewis is reminding us that much of the 16th century background of Bible translation in Europe, including England, was laid by Catholics loyal to Rome. It was perhaps only later that Bible translation became associated with Protestantism and was rejected by the church of Rome.
It's too bad anonymous pulled the review of Sanneh. Does anyone have a reference to it? Or better, an electronic copy?
ReplyDeleteRich asked:
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad anonymous pulled the review of Sanneh. Does anyone have a reference to it? Or better, an electronic copy?
I'm googling (not gurgling) now, Rich. Let's see if one of these might be the one Anon. included in his comment:
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1990/v46-4-bookreview10.htm
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=884
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/31.111.html
I think it might be the second one from what I remember.