Laman

Hello,

I am a student and open to lots of new ideas. I have a definite interest in the Bahá'í Faith but have a few questions...

1) Why are all the religious writings written in the style of the King James Version of the Bible? If they were originally not in English but translated in the 19th and 20th Centuries, why did the translators not use contemporary English but the English of early 17th Century England? Was this to give the Bahá'í writings a feel that would be recognizable to English and American readers?

2) The statement "All revelation is relative" bothers me somewhat, particularly if that statement itself is relative.

If anybody here could help address these questions or provide links to further resources for me, I would appreciate it greatly.

Alláh-u-Abhá الله أبهى

aji

Laman, how wonderful that you're investigating spirituality and religion at a young age. I recently read a book entitled "Pen of Glory" (Selected works of Baha'u'llah) which had an introductory segment that may address your first question - I hope you find it helpful.

"A word should perhaps be said about the literary style of English translations included herein. Baha'u'llah possessed a superlative command of classical Persian and Arabic, which He used as an instrument of transformative effect. His translators faced a daunting challenge, for their rendering had not only to convey precisely the Author's intent but also to capture for the English reader the exalted and emotive spirit in which this intent was communicated. The form of expression settled upon - faithful in both respects to the original - is reminiscent of that used by seventeenth-century translators of the Bible, unique in its perennial power to touch the soul."

As to your second question, you are absolutely correct - the statement itself is relative, as are all the teachings of the Manifestations of God. As humans, we have a great degree of capacity to attain knowledge and discover the truths of the world, both visible and invisible, through the teachings of the Manifestations - through symbolism, allusions and parallels, but Absolute Truth is a station accessible only to the Lord of Creation.

LordOfGoblins

by relative one should know what that means.
It means that truth is revealed progressively according to mans understandings and culture at the time the message was given.
Thats not to say there is no such thing as hard and fast truth!
Not at all. Truth is the reality which the prophets come to describe and lead man to. So by relative we mean that its relative to mans capacity at the time. It only contradicts due to misunderstandings that arise from different processes...

Fadl

Hey Laman!

There actually many reasons for this. One of them is that the writings in their original form are revealed in the classic language. In other words, the works that were revealed in Arabic, for example, are classical Arabic and not modern contemporary. It is the language of the Qur'an not of the modern Arab. So when we have translations that are in Elizabethan like languge, it actually more acurately conveys the classical feel and beauty of the original that would be lost in a contemporary transaltion. By the way, there is nothing in the faith that prohibits different translation styles. As someone who travels the world and interacts with Baha'is of many language backgrounds, for non-native English speakers, the style of English can be a real hinderance. I'm sure in the future there may be some international or modern English variant, but for now I'm sure it is a matter of limited resource more than anything else. But having our writings in this older style, in addition to beauty and representing the classical feel of the original, has another benefit which is that the meaning is better preserved and fosilized. Since nobody uses or speaks with the style of English in our writings, the meanings are locked and preserved better than if they were contemporary. This is because language is a living, and fast adapting phenomena and what a certain word means today is not what it means tomorrow. That means contemporary language translations need updating to stay meaningful over time.

LordOfGoblins

I dont disagree with any of the above from Fadl but in terms of question (1) which I didnt notice properly when I first read your post- this is something which I was thinking about the other day and the answer that came to me is this:

MODERN ENGLISH IS INFERIOR TO CLASSICAL ENGLISH.

In other words it is less articulate and less eloquent than the classical one. So to better describe things the classical english is actually superior esp in terms of what is needed for holy writings.
Think about it. English is on the decline. A lot of the older words are no longer in use. Just listen to rap music and you will know what I mean! Or go watch one of those old movies like pride and predjudice and see how much better their english is than our modern day english!

What I write here is just my opinion..

Laman

Thank you for your replies. They were very helpful.

ahanu

What the hell is this? Rap and other forms of modern English can be just as eloquent as Shakespeare!

LordOfGoblins

Try translating a holy text into getto rap language and see how you go.

Fadl

LOG,

I'm not sure if modern English is any way "inferior", but it is certainly "defective" in grammatical terms. For Example, when I read the writings it is much more clear who the subject is in the second person simply because modern English uses "you" for plural and singular. There are other examples of how modern English is defective, but this is the easiest to explain. Sometimes you make think this is not a big deal, but it actually is. IF you were to read one of the modern translations of the Bible out there that has abandoned all "ye"s and "thou"s", etc. and then compare it to something like the original King James or Amercian Standard, you will discover that the meaning of the modern translation can be incorrectly understood without looking at an older translation. For example, when Jesus is being quoted in a address, it may be unclear if he addressed an individual or a multitude. King James and American Standard all not vunerable to such confusion and neither are our writings. Of course, this is just one example. There are many more.

Sen McGlinn

Regarding the language used by Shoghi Effendi, he was following a theory and practice already established by E.G. Browne. Browne is a very good translator, and his s translations of The Traveller's Narrative for example (also the Tablet to the Shah), were already in use by the Bahais when Shoghi Effendi was beginning his work, and where Shoghi Effendi retranslates something Browne has already done, he sometimes takes an entire sentence from Browne unchanged.

Browne's translation theory owes much to one of his teachers, William Wright, whose "rule" is: In my translation I have striven to be as literal as the difference between the two idioms will allow. My method is first to translate as closely as I can, and then to try if I can improve the form of expression in any way without the sacrifice of truthfulness to the original. I also endeavour to preserve a somewhat antiquated and Biblical style, as being peculiarly adapted to the rendering into English of Oriental works, whether poetical or historical. The Old Testament and the Ko'ran, which are, of course, in many ways strikingly similar in their diction, can both be easily made ridiculous by turning them into our modern vernacular, particularly fi we vulgarize with malice prepense." (Quoted by Browne in TN xlix).

There's more on translation theory there. One thing Browne notes is that he tries to use the same English translation for any given Persian word. I have been working through Browne's translation of the Traveller's Narrative, comparing his choices of key terms with Shoghi Effendi's, using the Computer Translation Assistant produced by the Bahai World Centre, which correlates Shoghi Effendi translations with the Persian/Arabic originals. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but where Shoghi Effendi has settled on one or usual translations of a given Persian/Arabic term, at least 50% of the time, maybe 75% of the time, it is the choice that Browne has already made.

In short: - there were already good translations of a few texts in use in the Bahai community, and Shoghi Effendi's style was very consistent with the best of them, to such an extent that it appears he was deliberately maintaining consistency, so that the translated Bahai Writings would appear so far as possible as one seamless whole. Imagine for example that you were reading Asterix in English translation, and book one in the series talked about a little village of Gauls in Armorica, and book two about a Gallic hamlet in Brittany. It would marr the experience of reading to some extent, so consistency in translation is a good thing in itself, and Shoghi Effendi no doubt knew this.

arthra

The statement "All revelation is relative" bothers me somewhat, particularly if that statement itself is relative.

I think the actual quote would be "Truth" is relative..meaning there is no "absolute" truth. Truth is relative to the time for which it is revealed... The Messengers of God reveal truth for the time ...for us. The universe is in flux...and changes all the time. We need truth revealed for our time.

He is the Interpreter of the Word: Divine Truth is Relative

"The Will and Testament of Bahá'u'lláh and The Will and Testament of the Master clearly and explicitly indicate that the Interpreter of the Word was the Centre of the Covenant and now is the Guardian. There are no other Interpreters whatsoever and no individual may interpret. This is strictly forbidden.

"Divine Truth is relative and that is why we are enjoined to constantly refer the seeker to the Word itself -- and why any explanations we make to ease the journey of the soul of any individual must be based on the Word -- and the Word alone."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada, June 4, 1957)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 313)

To them will the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar symbolize the fundamental verity underlying the Bahá'í Faith, that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is not final but progressive.

(Shoghi Effendi, Extracts from the USBN)

aji

Thanks for providing these quotes Arthra! I always thought of the concept of "relative" as it relates to our time and capacity to understand truth, but your quote "Divine Truth is relative..." is shedding new light on the term for me, mainly that truth is also relative by individual, which is why it's important to quote the Word directly where possible.

Thanks!

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laman The statement "All revelation is relative" bothers me somewhat, particularly if that statement itself is relative.

The passage below from the Baha'i scriptures illustrates why, as Art pointed out, we Baha'is say that truth is relative:


"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof. Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."
Gleanings, LXXXI, p. 187

Peace, :-)

Bruce