Does one need to know the original language?

[fallingblood]

This came up in another thread. Does one need to know the original language, or are current translations good enough when studying a religious text?

For me, I started learning Arabic shortly before I converted to Islam. I did so because I wanted to convert to Islam, and thought it would be best to read the Quran in the original language. This was quite a few years ago. I learned Arabic well enough to read the Quran in it's original language, but I wouldn't say my Arabic was the best. After comparing the English translation that I had, and starting to fall away from Islam, I gave up Arabic, and haven't used it in nearly half a decade. So my Arabic now is rough at best, and I simply don't use it. But I believe the English is just well enough.

The same is true for me with Hebrew and Greek. I taught myself Hebrew (to a point) from a book on Biblical Hebrew. I learned enough to stumble my way through the Old Testament. I gave that up though because I have little interest in the Old Testament anymore. I learned Greek, to begin with, in the same manner, and then I helped along by one of my teachers.

With that background, and being able to read these "holy" books in their original languages, I've come to the conclusion that the English is well enough. Especially when one has scholars who can explain the interpretations and translations.

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

 

[Riverwolf]

For Abrahamic books, yes, English translations are good enough for the most part, because there are several translations to choose from, and the languages are still spoken to some extent. Arabic, for example, from what I've heard, hasn't changed significantly since the Qur'an was revealed, so there's not a whole lot of question as to what words can mean what.

However, with other languages, it's a bit more difficult. Mandarin, for example, is a very subtle language, so English translations of the Dao De Jing tend to conflict on certain things, and they tend to be very dry.

When it comes to texts like the Vedas, they can't really be translated to English, because Vedic Sanskrit is a dead language, and from what I've heard, scholars in the language have trouble with it. Therefore, the exact meanings of words, many of which are more extensive in meaning than their rough English equivalents, can be very difficult to translate. The best you can do is a rough verse-summary, and even those can't be all that reliable.

 

[fallingblood]

For a book like the Dao De Jing (I use that one because I know I have a copy of that, and it's a side by side translation, not that it matters for me because I can't read the original language) what would you suggest for someone who can't read the original language but wants to study it?

Do you think in that case it would be necessary to learn the original language in order to fully understand it, or could one get a scholarly book on it that explains the interpretation and translation of the work?

 

[Copernicus]

This came up in another thread. Does one need to know the original language, or are current translations good enough when studying a religious text?

It is best to know the original language, if that is possible, but you should really ask what it means to "know a language". You cannot know an ancient language in the same sense that you can know a modern language, because most of the culture and history that gives meaning to the text has been lost. For example, when Ugaritic was finally translated in the 20th century, it was discovered that some of the text from the Hebrew Bible actually existed verbatim in the local pagan literature. And scholars were able to discover some of the Biblical usage better by studying language usage in Ugaritic, a West Semitic language like Hebrew. Still, we can only piece together what traces of those old languages that remain to us, so we can never come to fully understand the text in its original meaning. It is always a matter of ever-increasing knowledge as more information is processed and analyzed. There are a great many ancient records that have yet to be translated.

With that background, and being able to read these "holy" books in their original languages, I've come to the conclusion that the English is well enough. Especially when one has scholars who can explain the interpretations and translations.

There is a popular, but misguided, belief that language per se conveys all the information that is necessary to extract originally-intended meaning. Human languages are actually very much grounded in the context in which utterances are spoken or written. There are quite often cultural metaphors that people with little knowledge of the culture cannot possibly get. Imagine that people in the future lost all knowledge of baseball and basketball, but they tried to interpret some political documents from ancient US archives that were full of basketball and baseball metaphors. You would be able to infer a lot of the meanings of metaphors, but it would be no slam-dunk for you to understand all of them, especially if you lacked the examples of usage to compare them against. Some of the language would be seeming to come right out of left field.

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

Again, you cannot just depend on conventional translations, because they are quite often based on fragmentary data and skewed knowledge of the cultural and historical context in which the language was written.

 

[Riverwolf]

For a book like the Dao De Jing (I use that one because I know I have a copy of that, and it's a side by side translation, not that it matters for me because I can't read the original language) what would you suggest for someone who can't read the original language but wants to study it?

Do you think in that case it would be necessary to learn the original language in order to fully understand it, or could one get a scholarly book on it that explains the interpretation and translation of the work?

Multiple translations, commentaries, and books about the Dao De Jing, and Daoism in general, would probably be best. Untranslatable doesn't mean unavailable. ^_^ The original Vedas would be, for all intents and purposes, unavailable except for the other Scriptures of Hinduism, ancient and modern, that deal with their subjects in more readily available ways.

Learning the original language would help, but Mandarin is vastly different from English. (I took a semester of it.) Unless you have a very, very good ear for language and a very good eye for written language, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

No, yes.

I am arabic native speaker and the argument of original language is simply idiotic.

 

[blackout]

It's only important, if it's important to you.

There is no other REASON it would be 'important'.

Is it important to achieve a deeper level of understanding
and appreciation for say... Bach... by learning
and studying the language of music theory
and achieving some ability to play the music yourSelf?

Most people would not feel it important enough
to put in that much time and effort.
(ie... years... of time and effort...)
It is the same with anything else.

 

[kejos]

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

How can translations be good enough if, as often occurs, they say different things?

 

[Caladan]

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

Depends for what purposes. if you want to reach a high (academic or whichever you want to call it) level of undertanding of the text and its context you should work to do it in the original language.

 

[fallingblood]

How can translations be good enough if, as often occurs, they say different things?

You can get better translations. Some are considered better than others. Especially if you get the commentary from scholars.

 

[fallingblood]

Depends for what purposes. if you want to reach a high (academic or whichever you want to call it) level of undertanding of the text and its context you should work to do it in the original language.

I would agree with that. It's partly the reason I'm trying to learn Greek with some affluence.

I'm talking about for non-academic reasons though. For instance, like debates on a forum.

 

[Caladan]

I would agree with that. It's partly the reason I'm trying to learn Greek with some affluence.

I'm talking about for non-academic reasons though. For instance, like debates on a forum.

I understand. it depands how deep the debate is going into. I think that its honorable and shows seriousness for a person to read or study even in his native tongue the sacred text of the religion he is debating, so in most cases its unrealistic to ask to do it in the original language.
however on some arguments, generally the more specific ones, the person who can read a sacred text in the original language is going to have an advantage.

 

[Magic Man]

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

It depends. I think it would help a lot to know the original languages of any book you plan to take as seriously as people do the Qu'ran or Bible. For instance, faulty translations are responsible for why many Christians believe the Bible condemns homosexuality. If you understood the original languages of the book, you'd understand that that interpretation is inaccurate.

Of course, I don't think anyone should take such books as seriously as they do anyway.

 

[kejos]

It depends. I think it would help a lot to know the original languages of any book you plan to take as seriously as people do the Qu'ran or Bible. For instance, faulty translations are responsible for why many Christians believe the Bible condemns homosexuality. If you understood the original languages of the book, you'd understand that that interpretation is inaccurate.

Do please explain. There are bishops and archbishops who would dearly love that particular explanation.

 

[Magic Man]

Do please explain. There are bishops and archbishops who would dearly love that particular explanation.

It's already been explained in another thread in the past couple of days where you were posting. You should pay more attention.

 

[kejos]

It's already been explained in another thread

Why haven't those bishops and archbishops been informed of this?

 

[Magic Man]

Why haven't those bishops and archbishops been informed of this?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[kejos]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The situation is this: homosexuals could achieve parity with heterosexuals in churches if they could prove that the Bible permits homosexuality. It so happens that there is an important test case under review right now, and the learned exposition in the thread referred to would resolve the situation beyond a peradventure. So the bishops and archbishops mentioned, who are sorely tried because of the pressure on one side from homosexuals, and on the other from Greek and Hebrew scholars, would be very grateful indeed if those scholars could be proved to be in error. It's a little surprising that action has not been taken already to provide them with this crucial information.

 

[kejos]

You can get better translations. Some are considered better than others.

How does one decide which are the better ones?

 

[fallingblood]

How does one decide which are the better ones?

By taking the word of scholars who can read the Greek and Hebrew.