In the name of God, the merciful, the most compassionate

[António Marques]

Hi. This question is mainly for Yusuf, but anyone's welcome to answer.

Since I'll never be able to read Arabic (I gave up on Hebrew years ago,
Arabic doesn't seem so incomprehensibly complicated, but still), do you
know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
Even better if it's annotated, but that's probably asking too much.
English, German or any Romance language would do. (Maybe Dutch could do
also.)

Thank you.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders

[DKleinecke]

Translation is always a matter of taste. I am not at all sure my
opinion of what is a good translation corresponds to your opinion of
what is good.

The short form of my answer to your question is - there are no good
translations of the Qur'an.

The version of the Qur'an I use is the translation (with Arabic text
and commentary) by Maulana Muhammad Ali. It is not perfect and I
admit I selected it because the Arabic Text was easier to read than in
any of its competitors. The commentary has its eccentricities but is
often useful.
The translation I would call unstable - it wobbles between a poor
imitation of the KJV "dialect" and occasional nice turns of phrase.
But all I use the translation for is to insure my reading of the
Arabic is correct. I have rarely had any quarrel with in that respect.

There seem to be two main problems with translations of the Qur'an -
(1) all of the translators copy each other and (2) all of the
translators show a great deal more respect for what they think it
means than is justified.

Muslims generally argue that the Qur'an cannot be translated. And
that is quite true if by translation you mean a text that will give
you an equivalent experience. But someday soon somebody may produce a
translation that reads well and does not cause too much
misunderstanding.

There are now more than a dozen translations of the QUr'an into Englis.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Hi. This question is mainly for Yusuf, but anyone's welcome to answer.
>
> Since I'll never be able to read Arabic (I gave up on Hebrew years ago,
> Arabic doesn't seem so incomprehensibly complicated, but still), do you

Standard Arabic doesn't notate non-phonemic variations like Masoretic
Hebrew does, so I would consider it more regular.

> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
> Even better if it's annotated, but that's probably asking too much.
> English, German or any Romance language would do. (Maybe Dutch could do
> also.)
>

two well known translations are those of Pickthall and Yusuf Ali.,
however, there has been much deveopment on the linguistic curioisties
in the Qur'an since they did their translations. most include a
commentary, Yusuf Ali has a liberal but still orthodox interpretation
of it. there are English translation originating from Arab countries
like Saudi Arabia, if you want a conservative commentary.


here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II:

<<

English. Versions by Christians: Ross, 1649, 1688, 1719, 1806. Sale,
1734-1892; American versions 1833-1923. Rodwell, 1861, 1876, 1909
(often reprinted to 1963). Palmer, 1880, 1900 (often reprinted to
1965). Bell, 1937-9. Arberry, 1955 (repr. 1963, 1964, 1969, 1971).
Many versions by orthodox Muslims including Pickthall, 1930 etc.,
bilingual eds. 1938, 1976. A. Yusuf Ali, 1934, etc.; Dawood, 1956 etc.
and by the Ahmadiyya.

>>


for the linguistic and historical issues I like the papers by Francois
de Blois.


just avoid the Penguin Classics version. it doesn't give the
traditional order of the chapters and it is said to have been done by
an Arab Christian who wanted to present it in a bad light. for
example, it says that Solomon slew his horses, instead of stroked
them. "stroking" was a medieval euphemism for slaying with the sword,
and was pointed out by an obscure medieval interpreter. so the author
decided to go along with it.

I personally own the translation by Yusuf Ali and a Turkish
translation (both being in the canonical form of having a parallel
Arabic text) but when I use them to answer internet questions on
Islam, I do my own critical study of the Arabic text. I also have a
purely Arabic codex that I keep in a safe place at home. I felt I
ought to have it, and well, allow me to casually indulge in a little
superstition.

translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible that
are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are just
considered study aids.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

they are argue that a translation could not and should not replace or
rival the original as a canonical text. translations were done since
the10th century and there are anectodes of it before. the oldest known
is in Persian, then in Turkic.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

if you have any questions on Islam, posting in soc.religion.islam is a
good idea. it's a moderated group, so there are no flames or abusive
language. though it has been rather slow recently, generally the
posters are knowledgeable.

[Curlytop]

Yusuf B Gursey set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> English. Versions by Christians: Ross, 1649, 1688, 1719, 1806. Sale,
> 1734-1892; American versions 1833-1923. Rodwell, 1861, 1876, 1909
> (often reprinted to 1963). Palmer, 1880, 1900 (often reprinted to
> 1965). Bell, 1937-9. Arberry, 1955 (repr. 1963, 1964, 1969, 1971).
> Many versions by orthodox Muslims including Pickthall, 1930 etc.,
> bilingual eds. 1938, 1976. A. Yusuf Ali, 1934, etc.; Dawood, 1956 etc.
> and by the Ahmadiyya.
>

> [snip]

> just avoid the Penguin Classics version. it doesn't give the
> traditional order of the chapters

Neither does Rodwell, the version I have, although there is a lookup table
at the start giving the page number on which each of the Suras start
according to their traditional numbers.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[António Marques]

Thank you, David.

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
> On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
>

> (...) here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)

Thank you, Yusuf.
Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?

I've found the http://al-quran.info/ which seems interesting.

> I personally own the translation by Yusuf Ali and a Turkish
> translation (both being in the canonical form of having a parallel
> Arabic text) but when I use them to answer internet questions on
> Islam, I do my own critical study of the Arabic text. I also have a
> purely Arabic codex that I keep in a safe place at home. I felt I
> ought to have it, and well, allow me to casually indulge in a little
> superstition.

Every other step we get a glimpse of Yusuf the emotional human being who
lurks behind Yusuf, the living textbook :)

> translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible that
> are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are just
> considered study aids.

I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only loonies, I
think translations of the Bible are mostly seen as what they are, renderings
of the text in a different medium. According to your specific beliefs you
may consider that this or that translation is more faithful and hence
endorse it, but not necessarily consecrate it. That is a reflex of most
christians not being familiar with the original languages - a translation
can't simply be a study aid, it'll have to do in most cases as a
replacement. I think the only case of reasonable consecration of a
translation is the steadfastness of the greek orthodox to the Septuagint,
which is kind of understandable - the LXX played such a role historically
that it doesn't matter all that much whether it is an original or not
(compare the Vulgate, which only really came into being after the first
centuries, and into wide use at a time its language was no longer spoken by
anyone, and is a translation of a known text where the LXX has a slightly
different basis from the extant texts in the original language).

[António Marques]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 08:51):
> On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Hi. This question is mainly for Yusuf, but anyone's welcome to answer.
>>
>> Since I'll never be able to read Arabic (I gave up on Hebrew years ago,
>> Arabic doesn't seem so incomprehensibly complicated, but still), do you
>> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
>> Even better if it's annotated, but that's probably asking too much.
>> English, German or any Romance language would do. (Maybe Dutch could do
>> also.)
>

> if you have any questions on Islam, posting in soc.religion.islam is a
> good idea. it's a moderated group, so there are no flames or abusive
> language. though it has been rather slow recently, generally the
> posters are knowledgeable.

Oh, thanks for the suggestion. I ask questions here because I do think I can
make more use of answers to certain of them by people I've come to know,
such as you lot. I don't expect you to be the supreme islamic authority,
just as I don't expect, say, Ross to be have the ultimate word on haka, but
I find youse opinions interesting because they come from yous.
My interests are primarily language and history, and most of the rest is
ancillary.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
> >> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
>
> > (...)  here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>
> Thank you, Yusuf.
> Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?
>

> I've found thehttp://al-quran.info/which seems interesting.

>
> > I personally own the translation by Yusuf Ali and a Turkish
> > translation (both being in the canonical form of having a parallel
> > Arabic text) but when I use them to answer internet questions on
> > Islam, I do my own critical study of the Arabic text. I also have a
> > purely Arabic codex that I keep in a safe place at home. I felt I
> > ought to have it, and well, allow me to casually indulge in a little
> > superstition.
>
> Every other step we get a glimpse of Yusuf the emotional human being who
> lurks behind Yusuf, the living textbook :)
>
> > translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible that
> > are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are just
> > considered study aids.
>
> I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only loonies, I
> think translations of the Bible are mostly seen as what they are, renderings

for example, the Ethiopic Bible contains chapters not found in others.
and Catholic transaltions have to reflect Vatican dogma.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

I follow soc.religion.islam as well, so does David Kleinecke. and
questions of the history of Islam and intepretation of the text of the
Qur'an are considered relevant ot hte group.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
> >> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
>
> > (...)  here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>
> Thank you, Yusuf.
> Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?

as Arberry is well known, I have come across quotations from it. It is
among the ones referenced as a rough trnalsation in Western literature
dealing on Qur'anci issues.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 3, 2:33 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>
> > > On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
> > >> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
>
> > > (...)  here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>
> > Thank you, Yusuf.
> > Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?
>

> > I've found thehttp://al-quran.info/whichseems interesting.

>
> > > I personally own the translation by Yusuf Ali and a Turkish
> > > translation (both being in the canonical form of having a parallel
> > > Arabic text) but when I use them to answer internet questions on
> > > Islam, I do my own critical study of the Arabic text. I also have a
> > > purely Arabic codex that I keep in a safe place at home. I felt I
> > > ought to have it, and well, allow me to casually indulge in a little
> > > superstition.
>
> > Every other step we get a glimpse of Yusuf the emotional human being who
> > lurks behind Yusuf, the living textbook :)
>
> > > translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible that
> > > are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are just
> > > considered study aids.
>
> > I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only loonies, I
> > think translations of the Bible are mostly seen as what they are, renderings
>
> for example, the Ethiopic Bible contains chapters not found in others.
> and Catholic transaltions have to reflect Vatican dogma.
>

also some denominations, easpecially in Eastern Christianity use only
a particular translation in liturgy. the (Roman) Catholic Church used
only Latin until the 1960's.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
> >> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially good?
>
> > (...)  here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>
> Thank you, Yusuf.
> Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?
>

> I've found thehttp://al-quran.info/which seems interesting.

>
> > I personally own the translation by Yusuf Ali and a Turkish
> > translation (both being in the canonical form of having a parallel
> > Arabic text) but when I use them to answer internet questions on
> > Islam, I do my own critical study of the Arabic text. I also have a
> > purely Arabic codex that I keep in a safe place at home. I felt I
> > ought to have it, and well, allow me to casually indulge in a little
> > superstition.
>
> Every other step

! That would be half the time!

You want either "every so often" or "once in a while" -- the latter
means even less frequently than the former.

> we get a glimpse of Yusuf the emotional human being who
> lurks behind Yusuf, the living textbook :)

Once in a very long while. (You can't add a qualification to "every so
often.")

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:

BTW the first element of the Basmala al-raHma:n ias redarded as more
emphatic than than second al-raHi:m. raHma:n in Arabic appears
invariably with the definite article and is regarded as a divine name,
whereas raHi:m could be used as an ordinary adjective. al-raHma:n was
used in pre-Islamic Arabia by Jews (it has its origin in early first
millenium Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic literature), Arab monotheists (so
according to Arab tradition and inscriptions in Sabaic <rHmnn>, with
the Sabaic definite article <-n> *-a:n of an indeterminite
monotheistic character) and in the Sabaic Christian inscriptions of
Abraha (Ethiopian King of Yemen, reigned just before Muhammad) as The
Father. it is the second most common divine name in the Qur'an after
Allah, especially common in early Meccan Surahs. according to Arab
tradition the Meccans refused to recognize a treaty with the Basmala
on it because of the presence of Rahman ('we don't recognize such a
deity") so bismika~lla:humma "in the name of you, O Allah" was used
instead. there seems to have been a debate in the early carrer of
Muhammad whether to use Allah or Rahman, whereupon the verse saying
that God may be worshiped under any name and the Basmala equating the
two.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 3, 4:46 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> BTW the first element of the Basmala al-raHma:n ias redarded as more
> emphatic than than second al-raHi:m. raHma:n in Arabic appears
> invariably with the definite article and is regarded as a divine name,
> whereas raHi:m could be used as an ordinary adjective. al-raHma:n was
> used in pre-Islamic Arabia by Jews (it has its origin in early first
> millenium Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic literature), Arab monotheists (so
> according to Arab tradition and inscriptions in Sabaic <rHmnn>, with
> the Sabaic definite article <-n> *-a:n of an indeterminite
> monotheistic character) and in the Sabaic Christian inscriptions of

Sabaic Jewish inscriptions as well. there was a Jewish-convert in
Yemen (the Himyarite kingdom adopted Judaism).

[Curlytop]

António Marques set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>> On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially
>>> good?
>>
>> (...) here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>
> Thank you, Yusuf.
> Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?
>
> I've found the http://al-quran.info/ which seems interesting.
>
>> I personally own the translation by Yusuf Ali and a Turkish
>> translation (both being in the canonical form of having a parallel
>> Arabic text) but when I use them to answer internet questions on
>> Islam, I do my own critical study of the Arabic text. I also have a
>> purely Arabic codex that I keep in a safe place at home. I felt I
>> ought to have it, and well, allow me to casually indulge in a little
>> superstition.
>
> Every other step we get a glimpse of Yusuf the emotional human being who
> lurks behind Yusuf, the living textbook :)
>
>> translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible that
>> are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are just
>> considered study aids.
>
> I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only loonies,

KJV is written in 17th century English. While English has undergone few
enough changes that KJV is recognisable as the same language, there have
been enough that some passages read wrongly if they are taken literally as
21st century English. (Indeed, IMHO KJV is one of the factors that have
*stabilised* English since first publication. KJV is closer in language to
today's English than to Chaucer or Pearl, but it is closer to Chaucer and
Pearl in time.)

So I'm happy to accept more modern English versions, and my shelves include
RSV, GNB, JB, and J. B. Philips' translation of NT. Not forgetting a copy
of NT in the original Greek.

> (compare the Vulgate, which only really came into being after the first
> centuries, and into wide use at a time its language was no longer spoken

There was controversy when the Vulgate was first published, because some of
the familiar wording from Old Latin had been altered.

So I can appreciate that my copy of the Qur'an is not an original - it's a
late 19th century English translation, though my copy is the umpteenth
reprint dated 1953. It seems to be pretty faithful to the text with no
bowdlerising of the (relatively few) anti-Christian passages, and where the
English has had to be restructured to make sense, a literal translation of
the Arabic is given.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-02-04, Curlytop wrote:

> António Marques set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):

>>> translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible that
>>> are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are just
>>> considered study aids.
>>
>> I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only loonies,
> KJV is written in 17th century English. While English has undergone few
> enough changes that KJV is recognisable as the same language, there have
> been enough that some passages read wrongly if they are taken literally as
> 21st century English. (Indeed, IMHO KJV is one of the factors that have
> *stabilised* English since first publication. KJV is closer in language to
> today's English than to Chaucer or Pearl, but it is closer to Chaucer and
> Pearl in time.)

AIUI, the KJV was written in quite conservative C.17 English (rather
than ordinary C.17 English).


--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]

[DKleinecke]

It is my understanding that the KJV does not represent the English
language at any stage in its development. Rather the churchmen wrote
in what they thought was Wycliff English (second half of the 1300's -
the time of Chaucer and Pearl - and failed badly. Wycliff himself -
and his immediate followers wrote - when he translated - in an
extremely Latinate way. He had too much respect for the Vulgate and
no knowledge of Greek. The difference is even starker when you compare
the KJV with Piers Plowman. I think Piers is a better comparison to
KJV because it is not Latinate - though well informed about Latin -
and alliterative verse is probably a better match for prose than more
trendy rhyme and rhythm.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> trendy rhyme and rhythm.-

You've overlooked both Tyndale and Coverdale, their principal sources.
Maybe even a little bit of Douai crept in. How could they even have
known Wyclif?

[António Marques]

Curlytop wrote (04-02-2012 15:59):
> António Marques set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:

>> (compare the Vulgate, which only really came into being after the first
>> centuries, and into wide use at a time its language was no longer spoken
>
> There was controversy when the Vulgate was first published,

NB here I was contrasting it to the LXX, as a comparatively less interesting
version in that its sources are independently available (those of the LXX
have been partly lost).

> because some of
> the familiar wording from Old Latin had been altered.

To this day, the text underlying some prayers is that of the old latin version.

[António Marques]

On Feb 3, 8:37 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>
> > > On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > >> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially
good?
>
> > > (...) here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>
> > Thank you, Yusuf.
> > Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?
>

> as Arberry is well known, I have come across quotations from it. It is
> among the ones referenced as a rough trnalsation in Western literature
> dealing on Qur'anci issues.

Do you mean the ones who are antagonistic to islam? I hadn't seen that
claim, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. The reviews I found seemed to say it
is more or less unique in that, rather than dwelling on literalness or
theological considerations, it tried (and succeeded to an extent) to capture
the look and feel of the original, making it ot1h good literature and otoh
scholarly in its emphasis on literary parameters rather than any theological
concern (not unlike a scholar of non-christian ancient greek who would turn
to translate christian texts). Also that the author was conscious of all the
problems with translation of scripture in general and the Qur'an in particular.

What I found about Asad says he was a convert from polish judaism, and that
his translation drew on intimate familiarity with judeo-christian scripture.

Of course, all those reviewers may just have been copying each other.

(I'm not necessarily interested in reading any given stance on islam per se;
rather, I was hoping to find a version of the text in a language I can read,
*reasonably* devoid of positive or negative adulterations.)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 5, 8:58 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:37 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>  >
>  > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>  >
>  > > > On Feb 1, 6:30 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt>  wrote:
>  > > >> know of any translation of the Qur'an that is regarded as especially
> good?
>  >
>  > > > (...)  here is the list given by Enc. of Islam II (...)
>  >
>  > > Thank you, Yusuf.
>  > > Have you perchance ever looked at Arberry's and Muhammad Asad's?
>  >
>  > as Arberry is well known, I have come across quotations from it. It is
>  > among the ones referenced as a rough trnalsation in Western literature
>  > dealing on Qur'anci issues.
>
> Do you mean the ones who are antagonistic to islam? I hadn't seen that

no, not neccessarily

[António Marques]

On Feb 3, 8:53 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:33 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
>>>> translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible
>>>> that are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are
>>>> just considered study aids.
>
>>> I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only
>>> loonies, I think translations of the Bible are mostly seen as what
>>> they are, renderings
>

>> for example, the Ethiopic Bible contains chapters not found in others.
>> and Catholic transaltions have to reflect Vatican dogma.
>
> also some denominations, easpecially in Eastern Christianity use only a
> particular translation in liturgy. the (Roman) Catholic Church used only
> Latin until the 1960's.

That's certainly true, but again I think it is chiefly an issue of
practicality. The extra books in the Ethipic Bible were left out of the
canon of the other churches, but not due to language. And the eastern
churches were quite keen on each people having the bible in their own
language. The roman church is in fact an apparent exception in its
insistence on latin, but the reason is the same: the desire to have an
official text with established interpretation. Once that becomes available,
the pressure to stick to it is very strong. It's not that the text has a
value of its own, as the originals have, or that one cannot use others; it's
rather that that text is well known and a safe basis for discussion. What
I'm trying to point out is the difference between consecration and endorsement.

Iiuc in islam ot1h there is a much greater familiarity with the original
language, and otoh one considers that no translation ever can really make do
for the original.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 5, 9:10 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:53 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 2:33 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
> >>>> translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible
> >>>> that are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are
> >>>> just considered study aids.
>
> >>> I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only
> >>> loonies, I think translations of the Bible are mostly seen as what
> >>> they are, renderings
>
> >> for example, the Ethiopic Bible contains chapters not found in others.
> >> and Catholic transaltions have to reflect Vatican dogma.
>
> > also some denominations, easpecially in Eastern Christianity use only a
> > particular translation in liturgy. the (Roman) Catholic Church used only
> >  Latin until the 1960's.
>
> That's certainly true, but again I think it is chiefly an issue of
> practicality. The extra books in the Ethipic Bible were left out of the
> canon of the other churches, but not due to language. And the eastern
> churches were quite keen on each people having the bible in their own
> language. The roman church is in fact an apparent exception in its
> insistence on latin, but the reason is the same: the desire to have an
> official text with established interpretation. Once that becomes available,

the "established interpetation" part is what Islam has difficulty in
making a canon out of a translation of the Qur'an. any translation of
the Qur'an is regarded as just one possible interpretation that mere
mortals can make, according to Islamic belief. Canonical prayes (Sala:
(t)) is performed with the Arabic original (the Qur'an actually states
that it is in Arabic) and so are theological arguments. but the Qur'an
says that it should be understood, so transaltions are made but not
canonized.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 5, 9:29 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:10 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:53 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 2:33 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Feb 3, 12:25 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (02-02-2012 06:40):
> > >>>> translation of the Qur'an are not like translations of the Bible
> > >>>> that are consecrated by a particular sect or ethnic group. they are
> > >>>> just considered study aids.
>
> > >>> I'm not so sure there's a difference. Aside from the KJV-only
> > >>> loonies, I think translations of the Bible are mostly seen as what
> > >>> they are, renderings
>
> > >> for example, the Ethiopic Bible contains chapters not found in others.
> > >> and Catholic transaltions have to reflect Vatican dogma.
>
> > > also some denominations, easpecially in Eastern Christianity use only a
> > > particular translation in liturgy. the (Roman) Catholic Church used only
> > >  Latin until the 1960's.
>
> > That's certainly true, but again I think it is chiefly an issue of
> > practicality. The extra books in the Ethipic Bible were left out of the
> > canon of the other churches, but not due to language. And the eastern
> > churches were quite keen on each people having the bible in their own
> > language. The roman church is in fact an apparent exception in its

the difference between Eastern Churches and evangelical Protestants is
that they have a single canon in some classical idion, not the current
vernacular.

> > insistence on latin, but the reason is the same: the desire to have an
> > official text with established interpretation. Once that becomes available,
>

and that was my point on Muslims not wanting to see the Qur'an be
split along "ethnic and sectarian lines." but they do desire it to be
understood, so again translations are commonplace, but they do not set
seperate canons.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

chroniclers talk about two instances of the Sala:(t) being performed
in the vernacular: early Muslim Spain and in Transoxania (which they
say was in Persian, though more likely in Sogdian). two garbled words
survive of the Trasnoxanian Sala:(t) which are restored by Frye as
meaning "stand up, stand up". not very helpful as these are not part
of the Sala:(t). the reason given was that the authorities were
appaled at the atempts at Arabic. at any rate, these were judged to be
a temporary measure until better instruction came in. there was some
debate as to what to do with the reading of th eQur'an by non-Arabs,
after some discussion the current state of affairs was agreed to.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

in Sogdian

[António Marques]

On Feb 6, 4:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:29 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 9:10 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > > That's certainly true, but again I think it is chiefly an issue of
> > > practicality. The extra books in the Ethipic Bible were left out of the
> > > canon of the other churches, but not due to language. And the eastern
> > > churches were quite keen on each people having the bible in their own
> > > language. The roman church is in fact an apparent exception in its
>
> the difference between Eastern Churches and evangelical Protestants is
> that they have a single canon in some classical idion, not the current
> vernacular.

Well... the eastern churches have been along for longer! (The LXX, the
original NT, the Vulgate, were in the vernacular at the time they were
produced... then time went by.)

> > > insistence on latin, but the reason is the same: the desire to have an
> > > official text with established interpretation. Once that becomes available,
>
> and that was my point on Muslims not wanting to see the Qur'an be
> split along "ethnic and sectarian lines." but they do desire it to be
> understood, so again translations are commonplace, but they do not set
> seperate canons.

Understood, but canon, interpretation and translation are separate
things. The canons in christianity are those of churches, not
languages; the protestants have their canon, the catholics have their
canon, the orhodox have their canon. It's not because they use this or
that translation. And the (N)RSV is endorsed by a large part of
english-speking christians, all with different interpretations of bits
of it.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 6, 8:51 am, António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:29 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 5, 9:10 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > > > That's certainly true, but again I think it is chiefly an issue of
> > > > practicality. The extra books in the Ethipic Bible were left out of the
> > > > canon of the other churches, but not due to language. And the eastern
> > > > churches were quite keen on each people having the bible in their own
> > > > language. The roman church is in fact an apparent exception in its
>
> > the difference between Eastern Churches and evangelical Protestants is
> > that they have a single canon in some classical idion, not the current
> > vernacular.
>
> Well... the eastern churches have been along for longer! (The LXX, the
> original NT, the Vulgate, were in the vernacular at the time they were
> produced... then time went by.)

but they don't update it.

>
> > > > insistence on latin, but the reason is the same: the desire to have an
> > > > official text with established interpretation. Once that becomes available,
>
> > and that was my point on Muslims not wanting to see the Qur'an be
> > split along "ethnic and sectarian lines." but they do desire it to be
> > understood, so again translations are commonplace, but they do not set
> > seperate canons.
>
> Understood, but canon, interpretation and translation are separate
> things. The canons in christianity are those of churches, not
> languages; the protestants have their canon, the catholics have their

I mean canonical text.

[DKleinecke]

I was economizing on words. There were plenty of manuscripts of
Wayclif around for them to look at. But they most likely rejected his
translation for its Vulgate tendencies. I actually have never looked
at Tyndale but I was under the impression that it was the main source
of the KJV. Hence I assume Tyndale also used that strange "Middle
English". The only reason I have come up with for such archaizing was
that that was traditional.

Some of these points are surely subject to research but I would guess
that In England, before English translations of the Bible were made it
was customary to quote Biblical passages in English from Wyclif. One
could, if one were willing to invest the time, scour the theological
literature in English between, say 1375 and 1525 for how the writers
handled Biblical translation. Even that they never did it is a
possibility.

Piers Plowman, which pre-dates Wyclif has a lot of little paraphrases
but also has a strong tendency to revert to explicit Latin. The
skillful integration of Latin into the English poem is one of the most
striking features of the poet's style. I would expect a slow decline
in the amount of Latin over the 150 years I mentioned above but I have
no clear idea what would have replaced it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 6, 10:50 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:38 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > You've overlooked both Tyndale and Coverdale, their principal sources.
> > Maybe even a little bit of Douai crept in. How could they even have
> > known Wyclif?
>
> I was economizing on words. There were plenty of manuscripts of
> Wayclif around for them to look at.  But they most likely rejected his
> translation for its Vulgate tendencies.  I actually have never looked
> at Tyndale but I was under the impression that it was the main source
> of the KJV.  Hence I assume Tyndale also used that strange "Middle
> English".  The only reason I have come up with for such archaizing was
> that that was traditional.
>
> Some of these points are surely subject to research but I would guess
> that In England, before English translations of the Bible were made it
> was customary to quote Biblical passages in English from Wyclif. One
> could, if one were willing to invest the time, scour the theological
> literature in English between, say 1375 and 1525 for how the writers
> handled Biblical translation. Even that they never did it is a
> possibility.

There was "theological literature in English" in the 15th century??

> Piers Plowman, which pre-dates Wyclif has a lot of little paraphrases
> but also has a strong tendency to revert to explicit Latin. The
> skillful integration of Latin into the English poem is one of the most
> striking features of the poet's style.  I would expect a slow decline
> in the amount of Latin over the 150 years I mentioned above but I have

> no clear idea what would have replaced it.-

Whence that "expectation"?

(Recently I came across inexpensive copies of 2 vols. of the Cambridge
History of English Literature, vol. 2 on Middle English and vol. 10
"The Age of Johnson," which are now 100 years old but repr. 1967; I've
read the first of them.)

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6f5e80c5-8d57-4bf5...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Or Wycliffe?
pjk

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-02-07, pauljk wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> You've overlooked both Tyndale and Coverdale, their principal sources.
>> Maybe even a little bit of Douai crept in. How could they even have
>> known Wyclif?
>
> Or Wycliffe?

Hey, if inconsistency was good enough for Shakspere, it's good enough
for anyone.


--
No sport is less organized than Calvinball!

[Paul Madarasz]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:53:33 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:

>also some denominations, easpecially in Eastern Christianity use only
>a particular translation in liturgy. the (Roman) Catholic Church used
>only Latin until the 1960's.

Our local priest, Father Jacobs, always celebrated the Mass in
Hungarian. I don't think he got any flack from the higher-ups. He
was pretty eccentric in other ways, too.
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey

[António Marques]

Paul Madarasz wrote (07-02-2012 17:48):
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:53:33 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey
> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
>
>> also some denominations, easpecially in Eastern Christianity use only
>> a particular translation in liturgy. the (Roman) Catholic Church used
>> only Latin until the 1960's.
>
> Our local priest, Father Jacobs, always celebrated the Mass in
> Hungarian. I don't think he got any flack from the higher-ups. He
> was pretty eccentric in other ways, too.

The Latin Mass, at least in Portugal during the '50s, used latin only for
the formulas and prayers. Scripture was read in portuguese. Which kind of
raises the question of who did the translations during all those centuries.
No, unless I see further evidence, I simply do not believe they used a latin
lectionary and did the translation on the fly, nor that they read scripture
in latin.

[Curlytop]

Peter T. Daniels set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> There was "theological literature in English" in the 15th century??

Best example I can offer (and I have a copy in the original) is "The Cloud
of Unknowing", very much akin to Chaucer in language, though that is
probably more like 14th century. It's certainly not the English of KJV
though.

Probably the most accessible body of literature at all in the immediate
pre-KJV era is Spenser's Faerie Queene.

<less serious note>
Many years ago I worked for one of the UK's defence electronics companies,
so I was quite startled to find this line in "The Cloud of Unknowing":
> He hadde not leyser for to loke after who is his freend & who is his fo
Laser IFF in the 14th century???
</less serious note>

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 7, 3:21 pm, Curlytop <pvstownsend.zyx....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
> > There was "theological literature in English" in the 15th century??
>
> Best example I can offer (and I have a copy in the original) is "The Cloud
> of Unknowing", very much akin to Chaucer in language, though that is
> probably more like 14th century. It's certainly not the English of KJV
> though.

"A work of Christian mysticism" rather than "theological literature,"
but (what you snipped is) we're looking for a source of quotations
from a preexisting Bible translation. Wycliff [the spelling used in
the CHEL 2] postdates or simuldates "Unknowing" so isn't a candidate
for such quotations, if indeed there are any in it. (CHEL only has an
index as its 15th volume, so I can't check whether I'm simply
misremembering that it isn't treated there.)

> Probably the most accessible body of literature at all in the immediate
> pre-KJV era is Spenser's Faerie Queene.

Again, not a likely venue for Scripture quotations, and also not
"theological literature."

[DKleinecke]

On Feb 7, 1:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Probably the most accessible body of literature at all in the immediate
> > pre-KJV era is Spenser's Faerie Queene.
>
> Again, not a likely venue for Scripture quotations, and also not
> "theological literature."

I wouldn't use Spenser as a source for real speech. The Fairy Queen is
a poetic tour-de-force and stretches English just about as far as it
will go. Another example of a bad man who was a good poet.

[DKleinecke]

On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Some of these points are surely subject to research but I would guess
> > that In England, before English translations of the Bible were made it
> > was customary to quote Biblical passages in English from Wyclif. One
> > could, if one were willing to invest the time, scour the theological
> > literature in English between, say 1375 and 1525 for how the writers
> > handled Biblical translation. Even that they never did it is a
> > possibility.
>
> There was "theological literature in English" in the 15th century??
>
> > Piers Plowman, which pre-dates Wyclif has a lot of little paraphrases
> > but also has a strong tendency to revert to explicit Latin. The
> > skillful integration of Latin into the English poem is one of the most
> > striking features of the poet's style.  I would expect a slow decline
> > in the amount of Latin over the 150 years I mentioned above but I have
> > no clear idea what would have replaced it.-
>
> Whence that "expectation"?
>

I admit that I do not know of any English theological writing in the
period in question. But I feel some must surely exist - most likely
still in manuscript. I do not know if any Lollard literature has
survived. I would expect it to in English.

The expectation is intuitive and is really only the starting
hypothesis for a research program. In my experience starting
hypotheses are rejected about half the time - if the research is
actually done. My intuition seems to stem from the thought that merely
knowing that the Bible could be read in English (in Wyclif) would
subconsciously lead writers to make more attempts to explain difficult
points in English when writing in English. A kind of stimulus
diffusion. Perhaps this hypothesis has already been explored - I am
very little interested in the subject and will do no work.

Personal note: I was lead to Piers Plowman a long time ago when I
thought to translate Hesiod and was looking for a form that might
sound as archaic to a modern English speaker as Hesiod would have to
classical Greek speaker. I was immediately hooked and have never
looked back. I was done with the old Greeks for life. Alliterative
verse would have done the trick but I never got fluent enough. It
sounds easy to make but not so.

For those unfamiliar with what i am talking about here is a fragment
from Piers in modern spelling. (I may have used this before - it is my
favorite example)

Pilgrims and palmers plighted together
For to seek Saint James and saints at Rome
Went on their way with many wise tales
And had leave to lie all their life after.

The Gawain poet is probably a better poet but his subject latter
interests me less.

[pauljk]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:7mp709x...@news.ducksburg.com...

> On 2012-02-07, pauljk wrote:
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>> You've overlooked both Tyndale and Coverdale, their principal sources.
>>> Maybe even a little bit of Douai crept in. How could they even have
>>> known Wyclif?
>>
>> Or Wycliffe?
>
> Hey, if inconsistency was good enough for Shakspere, it's good enough
> for anyone.

Something like that I had in mind.
Somehow I managed to post it without a smiley.
pjk

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 7, 8:58 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Some of these points are surely subject to research but I would guess
> > > that In England, before English translations of the Bible were made it
> > > was customary to quote Biblical passages in English from Wyclif. One
> > > could, if one were willing to invest the time, scour the theological
> > > literature in English between, say 1375 and 1525 for how the writers
> > > handled Biblical translation. Even that they never did it is a
> > > possibility.
>
> > There was "theological literature in English" in the 15th century??
>
> > > Piers Plowman, which pre-dates Wyclif has a lot of little paraphrases
> > > but also has a strong tendency to revert to explicit Latin. The
> > > skillful integration of Latin into the English poem is one of the most
> > > striking features of the poet's style.  I would expect a slow decline
> > > in the amount of Latin over the 150 years I mentioned above but I have
> > > no clear idea what would have replaced it.-
>
> > Whence that "expectation"?
>
> I admit that I do not know of any English theological writing in the
> period in question.  But I feel some must surely exist - most likely
> still in manuscript. I do not know if any Lollard literature has
> survived. I would expect it to in English.

Lollardy _is_ discussed in the CHEL 2, and basically they shunned
theology.

> The expectation is intuitive and is really only the starting
> hypothesis for a research program.  In my experience starting
> hypotheses are rejected about half the time - if the research is
> actually done. My intuition seems to stem from the thought that merely
> knowing that the Bible could be read in English (in Wyclif) would
> subconsciously lead writers to make more attempts to explain difficult
> points in English when writing in English. A kind of stimulus
> diffusion. Perhaps this hypothesis has already been explored - I am
> very little interested in the subject and will do no work.

The Wyclifite translations were published only in the 1380s.

> Personal note: I was lead to Piers Plowman a long time ago when I
> thought to translate Hesiod and was looking for a form that might
> sound as archaic to a modern English speaker as Hesiod would have to
> classical Greek speaker. I was immediately hooked and have never
> looked back.  I was done with the old Greeks for life.  Alliterative
> verse would have done the trick but I never got fluent enough.  It
> sounds easy to make but not so.
>
> For those unfamiliar with what i am talking about here is a fragment
> from Piers in modern spelling. (I may have used this before - it is my
> favorite example)
>
>      Pilgrims and palmers plighted together
>      For to seek Saint James and saints at Rome
>      Went on their way with many wise tales
>      And had leave to lie all their life after.
>
> The Gawain poet is probably a better poet but his subject latter

> interests me less.-

The CHEL 2 authors all seem to think that the 7-line stanza ABABCCC
(which seems to have been an English innovation) was a wonderfully
flexible and useful invention.

[DKleinecke]

On Feb 7, 8:56 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> The CHEL 2 authors all seem to think that the 7-line stanza ABABCCC
> (which seems to have been an English innovation) was a wonderfully
> flexible and useful invention.

It certainly is wonderful. I am not at all sure what is meant by
either flexible or useful poetic forms.
But have they ever tried actually writing poetry in it. It ain't easy.

The Fairy Queen is amazing - but not, I think, a good role model

[Curlytop]

DKleinecke set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> Personal note: I was lead to Piers Plowman a long time ago when I
> thought to translate Hesiod and was looking for a form that might
> sound as archaic to a modern English speaker as Hesiod would have to
> classical Greek speaker. I was immediately hooked and have never
> looked back.

I have read PP in the original. Fascinating piece. The scene with Glutton in
the tavern had me in stitches. But the business of Piers' pardon was a bit
confusing. Was it a pardon or not?

> It sounds easy to make but not so.

I managed four lines for the wedding of a friend of mine who was into Old
English so would recognise the style:

God graunt me grace, greting to yeue
Euen to þe faire copel, ....... & .........
Wyssynge yow wel on yowre weddinge daye
& mucel ioye toyidres þro3 mony yeares to com.

The names of the couple completed an abab alliteration with the first half
of the line.

[DKleinecke]

You did good - I bet it didn't come easy.

But the spelling has no reason to be more archaic than necessary. If
you look at the critical editions you can see that the manuscripts
have no consistency at all in spelling. Apparently they were making
copies by the reader and writer method.

God grant me grace. Greetings to you
Even to the fair couple ..... & .....
Wishing you well on your wedding day
And much joy together through many years to come

But I suppose the spelling is part of the joke

Piers' Pardon has been endlessly debated. It comes at the end of a
finished poem and one would imagine it to be the climax. The easiest
reading is that the meaning of Piers changes. There are three major
versions of the poem (and a possible fourth) and in each the symbolism
differs.

The author's attitude toward the church remains unclear. It shows no
sign of being proto-Protestant but it is often critical

"Contra" quoth I and commenced to dispute

So the meaning of the Pardon might mean that the church is taking on
too much and the common wit of the plowman is all that is needed for
salvation. Or he might have had something entirely different in
mind. We can speculate - but never know.

[Curlytop]

DKleinecke set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> On Feb 11, 1:46 pm, Curlytop <pvstownsend.zyx....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> God graunt me grace, greting to yeue
>> Euen to þe faire copel, ....... & .........
>> Wyssynge yow wel on yowre weddinge daye
>> & mucel ioye toyidres þro3 mony yeares to com.
>

> You did good - I bet it didn't come easy.

Thank you. Actually I was "well into" the style at the time. The second two
lines were quite easy, the first two were the difficult ones, especially
trying to work the two names in.

> But the spelling has no reason to be more archaic than necessary. If
> you look at the critical editions you can see that the manuscripts
> have no consistency at all in spelling. Apparently they were making
> copies by the reader and writer method.
>
> God grant me grace. Greetings to you
> Even to the fair couple ..... & .....
> Wishing you well on your wedding day
> And much joy together through many years to come

Putting it into modern spelling has spoilt some of the alliterations. The
last word of the first line was actually a form of "give", spelt with a y
(a valid alternative in middle English) to avoid an aaaa alliteration on
the g-sound. These can sound dull and heavy. And in the last line, the aaax
alliteration on the y-sound is lost when it is replaced by j and g in the
first two stresses.

> Piers' Pardon has been endlessly debated. It comes at the end of a
> finished poem and one would imagine it to be the climax. The easiest
> reading is that the meaning of Piers changes. There are three major
> versions of the poem (and a possible fourth) and in each the symbolism
> differs.
>
> The author's attitude toward the church remains unclear. It shows no
> sign of being proto-Protestant but it is often critical
>
> "Contra" quoth I and commenced to dispute
>
> So the meaning of the Pardon might mean that the church is taking on
> too much and the common wit of the plowman is all that is needed for
> salvation. Or he might have had something entirely different in
> mind. We can speculate - but never know.

I see it as a rejection of the Church's authority to issue such pardons at
all, as though a simple Scriptural quotation written on a piece of paper
were sufficient to pronounce a person free from sin. I can no pardon find.