The Myth of Theologically “Neutral” Terms
Opponents of Muslim-idiom translation typically object to the use of particular Islamic key terms which they feel distort the meaning. In doing so, they often fail to see that the traditional “Christian” alternatives are at least equally problematic. Bible translation projects may aspire to acceptab...
| Published in: | The Bible translator |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2023
|
| In: |
The Bible translator
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Bible
/ Bible. Matthäusevangelium 1-4
/ Translation
/ Urdu
/ Terminology
/ Islam
/ Christianity
|
| RelBib Classification: | BJ Islam CC Christianity and Non-Christian religion; Inter-religious relations HA Bible HC New Testament KBM Asia |
| Further subjects: | B
Translation
B Urdu B Bible B Matthew B Muslim |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Opponents of Muslim-idiom translation typically object to the use of particular Islamic key terms which they feel distort the meaning. In doing so, they often fail to see that the traditional “Christian” alternatives are at least equally problematic. Bible translation projects may aspire to acceptability among both Christians and Muslims (usually with one audience considered “primary” and the other “secondary”), or they may hope that a translation’s high level of contextualisation can be offset by publishing it together with a more “neutral” interlinear text. However, even just glossing Greek words, term by term, may present a whole host of difficulties, as can be demonstrated in attempting to gloss Matthew 1–4 in Urdu. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2051-6789 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The Bible translator
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/20516770231219236 |