Did Jesus Write Anything Down Himself?

prinz

jaffa20 wrote: »

Maybe not but you have to understand that you are not only translating a language but a culture, a different set of ideas with a different time period. It is very difficult to translate that without being subjective. You translate in a way that that can only be interpretated by us in the present and thus, the meaning and object of the original text is lost. This relates to a text of any period.

Having read Albert Camus in English and French, I beg to differ.

jaffa20

prinz wrote: »

Having read Albert Camus in English and French, I beg to differ.

So was Meursault a stranger or an outsider from your understanding Even the title can be misinterpretated through translation. Which has a major impact on how it would be understood by the anglophone reader.

prinz

jaffa20 wrote: »

Even the title can be misinterpretated through translation, having a major impact on the whole of the novel.

Possible but unlikely. Regardless of the impact I don't think the meaning and object of the original text are materially affected by translation, when it's done properly. Yes there will be nuances and techniques which won't translate properly but on the grand scheme of things I don't think it is impossible to connect with the author and his/her work, it IMO transcends the boundaries of time and language.

This is something I have a lot of issues with on DVDs these days as it happens. I watch a good lot of foreign language films and the standards of subtitling into English is appalling on some, especially when it comes to humour ( word plays, puns, rhyming etc ).

jaffa20

prinz wrote: »

Possible but unlikely. Regardless of the impact I don't think the meaning and object of the original text are materially affected by translation, when it's done properly. Yes there will be nuances and techniques which won't translate properly but on the grand scheme of things I don't think it is impossible to connect with the author and his/her work, it IMO transcends the boundaries of time and language.

This is something I have a lot of issues with on DVDs these days as it happens. I watch a good lot of foreign language films and the standards of subtitling into English is appalling on some, especially when it comes to humour ( word plays, puns, rhyming etc ).

Exactly, because it is very difficult to translate something like humour too, when the sense of humour could be lost on the target audience.

There are so many translations of L'etranger out there that the object of the original is bound to be lost in the translations. Each translation is a unique interpretation of the original and so will have a different effect on the reader than the original.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

prinz

jaffa20 wrote: »

Exactly, because it is very difficult to translate something like humour too, when the sense of humour could be lost on the target audience.

Watching German comedies with my OH isn't fun Apparently people are being unbelieveably funny, but the subtitles aren't remotely.

jaffa20 wrote: »

There are so many translations of L'etranger out there that the object of the original is bound to be lost in the translations. Each translation is a unique interpretation of the original and so will have a different effect on the reader than the original.

I know what you're saying and it has merit. I think it can happen and often does ( just thinking about certain film remakes makes me cringe ), but in literature it shouldn't really be the case. Even if certain phrases or words are laden with a particular meaning and this isn't conveyed to a reader a footnote etc should be included in a decent edition to explain the significance. I did La Peste myself . Even works in English should have this.

Soul Winner

jaffa20 wrote: »

We'll never know. Unless you have a time machine.

I'm talking about translation in general here. I wrote my thesis on translation and have studied the problems of translating culture. My point is that translation, and understanding of a text in turn is subjective and cannot be understood in the present because someone has a different set of thoughts and ideas than the creator of the original.

I know all too well that things can be lost in translation. We read the Bible from the position of English - which for the most part is a watered down version of the original. But if you could read the original languages that the New Testament was written in (primarily Greek) and then read the oldest extant manuscripts of the New Testament documents you will find emerging an even stronger version of the gospel message than the watered down English version can allow. Greek is a much more precise language than English so yeah I'm all for knowing what the Greek is saying. English doesn't have the vocabulary or grammar structure to be able to say what the Greek is able to say, and that's not English's fault, it is just a fact of language. But there are other factors which do impinge upon the translation of certain parts of the text and this does have to do with the theological viewpoint of the translators. Take Romans 8 verse 1 for instance. It is translated in the King James as follows:

"There is therefore no condemnation for them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit."

The original Greek does not include "who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit" in that verse. This was added by the English translators because their theological biases could not get passed the fact that once you are in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation FULL STOP. You are not not condemned because you walk not after the flesh but after the spirit, you are not condemned because you are in Christ Jesus, simple as. And how you get in Christ Jesus is by faith alone, not by walking after the spirit and not the flesh. That kind of walking is an inevitable result of being in Christ Jesus by faith, because once you are in Him then He is in you and greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world, that’s power and He doesn’t need any additional help we can bring by not walking after the flesh etc. Adding that part to the original text destroys the original’s power and reveals the translators hang ups on having to add something that they can do in order to merit no condemnation from God for themselves, nothing else. The walk not after the flesh but after the spirit part doesn't come until verse 4 of the same chapter and that is where it fits. So you see you are correct in that things do get lost in translation but we have really old extant manuscripts that are there to be looked at to see what is actually being said, so what is the problem in just learning a little of the original Greek and checking it out?

Then we come to interpretation. You can rate certain narratives in the text by how much they are repeated by the writer, which gives you a clue as to the importance of what (the writer at least) places on them. Then there's Multiple attestation i.e the same event written about by multiple authors. For instance the empty tomb narratives. The empty tomb story is multiply attested to in the New Testament records, and even though the writers differ on some of the secondary aspects of the empty tomb story, they are all agreed that the tomb was empty. Now what must be explained is why it was empty, seeing that the fact of its emptiness passes all the historical criteria including it lacking any later legendary embellishments. There are other criteria we could throw in but you get my drift. Once we have the text laid out in front of us I fail to see how it can be interpreted any other way than the way it is laid out. It won't prove what the text is saying to be true or not but it will tell you what the text is actual saying at least.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Er no it didn't tbh. When it comes down to it, whether she is 13 or 18 is immaterial to the actual story.

That is not really the point. The point is how modern context shapes are perception of the story to produce an image of it that is actually different to how the details of how the story actually is.

You don't think that if they made a film version of R&J and cast actual 13 year olds in the roll, fighting, killing, having sex and getting married, people would view it quite differently to the traditional view of a tragic yet highly romantic story? That instead of seeing it is a classic love story they would see it as disturbing and graphic, like the movies "Kids" and "Thirteen"?

prinz wrote: »

Different culture, different sets of ideas, different time period yes..does this mean it was actually intended to convey a different message as it does today? Not necessarily.

Again that isn't the point, Shakespeare was attempting to convey a tragic love story, but in order for it to be accepted as that in this day and age it is necessary for most people to mentally change the details of the story. To accept the story rather than be revolted by it we imagine the leads as much older. Clare Danes was 17 when she made Baz Larmans version of the film, and late teens early adult is how most people imagine the ages of the characters.

This doesn't matter that much in a Shakespearian love story, as you say it is not crucial to the story. It matters much more in something like the Bible, where people are actually supposed to take the details from the stories, rather than simply fudge together a pleasing interpretation that fits comfortably with them.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

This doesn't matter that much in a Shakespearian love story, as you say it is not crucial to the story. It matters much more in something like the Bible, where people are actually supposed to take the details from the stories, rather than simply fudge together a pleasing interpretation that fits comfortably with them.

Except the Bible hasn't been changed to make it more palatable to today's readers. Isn't that the founding stone of almost every Atheist here....... "what about Leviticus etc"... I haven't seen one person argue that the details of the Bible have been fudged together to make it a more fun read. It's usually the very, very opposite. Almost every other day there is a thread with a passage from the Bible asking Christians how they can accept x or y... and reconcile it with a loving God. I haven't seen many people argue that the Bible has been 'softened' over the years so as not to offend our modern day sensibilities.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Except the Bible hasn't been changed to make it more palatable to today's readers.

Neither has R&J, it is still the text from the 16th century. The difference is between what the text actually says and the mental image people have in their head based on what the text says.

I can certainly think of examples of discussions with Christians where what they believe the Bible must say is actually different to what it does say. Or atheists for that matter, the point is still the same, though again it is less important for atheists since they don't attempt to structure their lives around the Bible.

prinz wrote: »

Isn't that the founding stone of almost every Atheist here....... "what about Leviticus etc"... I haven't seen one person argue that the details of the Bible have been fudged together to make it a more fun read. It's usually the very, very opposite.

That wasn't really my point. I'm not saying that people purposely go out and fudge the Bible and then pass it on (though there are versions of the Bible that have been re-written for modern usage, though most Christians I know would think this is a bad idea).

My point is that the fudging goes on in the persons head, between the reading of the text and the formation of the mental image that they form based on it. I've seen this even the most dedicated Biblical Christian (ie a Christian who spends a lot of time studying the Bible)

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

My point is that the fudging goes on in the persons head, between the reading of the text and the formation of the mental image that they form based on it. I've seen this even the most dedicated Biblical Christian (ie a Christian who spends a lot of time studying the Bible)

I think we're going off the track here though. I could read a fire escape sign and interpret differently to you. Everything is open to interpretation in the mind of the reader, viewer, listener etc, I completely agree.

The original point however was that in translation and transcription the Bible has been materially altered over time in a Chinese whispers sort of way. I was saying that's not necessarily so. As you point out yourself R&J is still the text from the 16th Century, our understanding and interpretation may be different now, but the text itself is not.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

I think we're going off the track here though. I could read a fire escape sign and interpret differently to you. Everything is open to interpretation in the mind of the reader, viewer, listener etc, I completely agree.

Agreed, it is drifting off to an interesting but OT discussion.

prinz wrote: »

The original point however was that in translation and transcription the Bible has been materially altered over time in a Chinese whispers sort of way. I was saying that's not necessarily so.

I would agree with that up to a point. There is evidence that from about the 2st century the various copies of the Bible we have are basically the same.

We can't really say anything earlier than that either way, so I guess it comes down to an issue of religious faith (and an issue of how important it is to the person that they haven't changed, personally I don't care )

But I guess if people are happy to believe that the original authors were divinely inspired it is not a huge leap to have faith that the copies of the manuscripts were divinely protected until they got to the point where we can determine from surviving copies that they have not changed. It seems illogical that God would go to the trouble of influencing the authors of the books and yet allow them to become corrupted as soon as they start being copied

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

We can't really say anything earlier than that either way, so I guess it comes down to an issue of religious faith (and an issue of how important it is to the person that they haven't changed, personally I don't care )

Are you sure you don't? You spend an awful lot of time focused on something you don't care about :pac: One of these days now, I'm sure of it Wicknight the converted

Wicknight wrote: »

But I guess if people are happy to believe that the original authors were divinely inspired it is not a huge leap to have faith that the copies of the manuscripts were divinely protected until they got to the point where we can determine from surviving copies that they have not changed. It seems illogical that God would go to the trouble of influencing the authors of the books and yet allow them to become corrupted as soon as they start being copied

True. For some reason all I can think of now is that sketch from Red Dwarf about the missing page of the Bible. :pac:. Hilarious. Maybe someone tore it out in the second century.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Are you sure you don't? You spend an awful lot of time focused on something you don't care about :pac: One of these days now, I'm sure of it Wicknight the converted

Well I tend to confine myself to threads where I feel Christianity is making claims, shall we say, above it's station.

But if Paul can be converted ... :pac:

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Are you sure you don't? You spend an awful lot of time focused on something you don't care about :pac: One of these days now, I'm sure of it Wicknight the converted ....

Facetiousness argh!!!

DaraMcG

Fattes wrote: »

He wrote "Romanes eunt domus" on a wall once but then a helpfull centurian corrected his grammer and he wrote "Romani eunt Domum" 100 times

I believe you'll find he was not the messiah...just a very naughty boy!

Stephentlig

Jesus is the Word, and he wrote the Bible, through his inspired authors.