The_Translation_of_Sacred_Texts.doc

Key reading

Buber, M. and Rosenweig, F. 1994.  Scripture and Translation Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Long, Lynne. 2005. Translation and Religion: holy untranslatable? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

(available on Google Books)

Nord, Christiane. 2003. ‘Function and Loyalty in Bible Translation’  In María Calzada Pérez (ed) Apropos of Ideology:Translation Studies on Ideology – Ideologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. 89 - 112

Robinson, Douglas. 1996. Translation & Taboo. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.

What is a sacred text, and how can it be defined?

This block considers the fundamental role that translation has had to play in the dissemination of religious thought and religious or sacred canonical texts. A ‘sacred’ text is defined here as a body of writing held to be the core or received doctrine of a religious belief system. It has been argued that a sacred text is a distinct genre, with certain defining characteristics. These characteristics also raise specific questions concerning the sacred text’s translation into other languages. For example, the genre of sacred writing is linked with the concept of taboo, originally conceived as an inhibition or ban that prohibits the mention of something because of its sacred nature (Robinson, 1996). Dworkin also links the term ‘sacred’ to inviolability, that which is sacrosanct and cannot ever ultimately be fully apprehended by human beings. This, in turn, is linked to the idea that a sacred text is the received word of a transcendent deity, and has its ultimate origin in that deity’s being. It is in this sense that a sacred text is declared ‘holy’ layered with conceptual levels, which, in themselves, retain a mystery at their core. The particular type of discourse contained in a sacred text, therefore, must, because of its transcendent origins, be irreducible to merely secular language which has its origin in human discourse, characterised by existence within a given time and space. It follows then, that a sacred text may be inherently ‘untranslatable’ in secular language.

Can religious texts be translated, and how should they be translated?

Yet, as Robinson (1996) states, the question of translation has always been fundamental to religions such as Christianity or Islam which are exoteric,  that is, expanding churches and belief systems which must be open to all believers and in all human languages. Thus a profound contradiction has been manifest throughout the history of the establishment and growth of these and other world religions: between the inviolability of canonical religious texts and the exoteric imperative to make the sacred text accessible and readily comprehensible to all. Thus, a dichotomy may open up between the imperative to translate in a literal way, reproducing the source text as faithfully as possible, and the necessity of finding equivalent translations in the target language in order to fully convey their meaning, and their cultural and metaphysical referents. Lynne Long (2005) identifies motives and intended audience as the principal determinants of the structure of a translation and supports the idea that translation may be made difficult by firstly, institutional and ideological restrictions laid on the translator; but also by the lack of corresponding vocabulary in the target language or specific cultural connotations of words in the target text in very different cultural and historical settings.

For example, institutions which act as gatekeepers or arbiters between a transcendent deity and believers may often insist that a translator has little or no latitude for deviation or imaginative reconstruction of a text: such translation as is undertaken must be as ‘faithful’ to the source text, and as functional and literal as possible. The Liturgicam Authenticam is an example of this kind of restriction, in that the Vatican provides guidelines as to how the liturgy should be translated: ‘It is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language’. This, in turn, is linked to the fear that the indissoluble between the text and God’s word will be violated by mis-translation. This has frequently been defined throughout the historical development of religious practice as blasphemy or heresy, defined as the desecration of the sacred character of a religious belief. Throughout the history of Christian thought and practice, translators of every generation have had to face such accusations.  For example, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort produced a Greek New Testament in 1881, which was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their version of the Bible, and these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. Charges of blasphemy, apostasy and heresy were laid against these two translators, who were accused of causing great damage to the Scriptures held at that time to be original. This question of taboo and heresy was raised forcibly in the modern era, in 1989, when the interpretation of the Qur’an by Salman Rushdie in the novel The Satanic Verses was the subject of a Shi’ite fatwa, ‘translated’ itself by different readerships and interests; and two translators of Rushdie’s work lost their lives. This raised once more the ‘real’ meaning of sacred texts within the modern contexts of politics, international relations, geography and culture, and the gap between religious and secular interpretations of the world and language.

Translation strategies: The dilemma of the religious translator

Given, however, that the task of translation must be undertaken, this also raises the question of what type of translation strategy is appropriate for this genre.  Give that religious texts embody a profoundly transcendent ‘other’, a purely functional translation cannot be sufficient on its own.  According to Nord (2003) there is the issue of content, on the one hand, and context on the other.

·         Functional translations and strategies on their own cannot be sufficient, given that textual understanding and apprehension of a sacred text can never be completely bound to epistemic ‘truth’.

·         Moreover, the original religious text is often identified by believers with its source language, such that the received religious doctrine and language are indivisible, and cannot be rendered into another tongue. According to Khaleel Mohammed ( 2005) ‘because the Qur’an stresses its Arabic nature, Muslim scholars believe that any translation cannot be more than an approximate interpretation, intended as a tool of the study and understanding of the original Arabic text’. Similarly, Leonard Greenspoon argues that any translation cannot really transfer the true meaning of a text. Bible translations are intended to supplement, not supplant; complement, not replace the original’.  

·         The sacred texts themselves are based on a wide range of text types, which may include parables, visions and metaphors whose intention is to take the reader or hearer away from what is concretely described in the text to a reality which is not confined to human experience, and that can never be entirely apprehended though language alone.

·         The nature of the sacred text is also defined by its historicity: the original source text on which religious writing is based has often been composed millennia ago, and the cultural and metaphysical references may not be directly comprehensible or translatable to a reader in the modern age. Strategies for the translation of thistorically or culturally specific source material is also necessary: otherwise,, it may not be possible to fully recreate the effect the source texts originally had on previous generations of readers and viewers.

·         Every translator or translators who undertake a translation of a canonical religious work may be conditioned by the work of earlier scholars and translators who have interpreted and maybe even bowdlerised the text for ideological purposes – but the contemporary translator, may, in turn, re-order the text according to his or her own perspectives which may influence the way the religion is widely perceived. For example, medieval theologians have eliminated some of the numerous Judeo-Christian references in the Qur’an, which has been subjected to considerable alteration over the centuries. Therefore, the recovery of an original ‘truth’ presumed to reside in the source text may be a part of the translator’s remit, and entail a ‘deeper’ research into original historical and cultural contexts.

Thus, a dichotomy may open up between the imperative to translate in a literal way, reproducing the source text as faithfully as possible, and the necessity of finding equivalent translations in the target language in order to fully convey their meaning, cultural and metaphysical referents.

DISCUSSION TOPIC 1: How may religious and holy texts be defined as a separate genre of writing, and what are the specific issues involved in their translation?

RESEARCH TOPIC 1: Carry out a case study of one translation of a sacred canonical text in any ‘world religion ‘of your choice (You may focus on a portion or excerpt from the sacred work rather than the whole text, which can be very long) and the translator’s own experience when carrying out the translation. Document and analyse the particular strategies that the translator has adopted, and the particular considerations and specific purpose that has led him or her to do so; the perspectives the translator has had towards religion and society, and the historical and cultural context writing which he or she was operating.

Secondary reading

Books

Abdul-Raof, H. 2001. Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. London: Routledge.

Ali, A. Y. 1983. The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Maryland: Amana Corp.

Barnwell, K 1975/1986. Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles. Dallas: SI4

Beehman, J. and Callow, J. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Bobuck, B. 2001. Wide as the Waters: the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution it Inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bruce, F. 1961. The English Bible: A History of Translations. London: Lutterworth Press.

Buber, M. and Rosenweig, F. 1994.  Scripture and Translation Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Orlinsky, H.M. 1974. Essays in Biblical Culture and Bible Translation. New York: KTAV

Waard, Jan D. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating.  Nashville:  Thomas Nelson.

Online articles

Ali A. Mazrui ‘ The Satanic Verses or a Satanic Novel? Moral dilemmas of the Rushdie Affair’ Third World Quarterly, 1360-2241, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1990, Pages 116 – 139

http://83.137.212.42/siteArchive/catalystmagazine/catalyst/The-Satanic-Verses-or-a-Satanic-Novel.pdf

Fred M. Frohock ‘Sacred texts’ Religion, Volume 33, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 1-21

http://www.sciencedirect.com

Harveen Sachveda Mann. ‘“Being Borne Across”: Translation and Salman Rushdies’ ‘The Satanic Verses.’ Criticism, Spring 1995.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_n2_v37/ai_17249756/

John Holloran, book review of Jonathan Sheehan, 2005 The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. H-Net Reviews

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=12880

Khaleel Mohammed. ‘Assessing English Translations of the Qur’an’  Middle East Quarterly Spring 2005

http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

Professor Pinchas Giller, Ricahrd Brzustowicz, and Professor Evgueny Tortchinov ‘The Faithful Translation of Sacred texts: Chinese. http://www.kheper.net/topics/relgion/faithful_translation-Chinese-htm

T. Johnson Chakkuvarackal, ‘Important Issues in the Translation of the Bible in the Indian Context’ Relgion Online http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2447

Other resources

Comprehensive collection of links and resources on all the ‘world’ religions

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/serious/religion.html

HistoryWorld  ‘History of Bible Translations’

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66

The Bible Museum, ‘English Bible History’ http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

A.R. Kidwai ‘Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the quran’ 4islam.com

http://www.4islam.com/trnaslations.shtml