6 ms·

Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations,

Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations, for the sake of a publishing industry keen to cash in on “wisdom lit”. He is an analogue of Coleman Barks the Rumi “translator” who doesn’t know Persian, and Brooks Haxton the Heraclitus “translator” without a background in Greek. [0] https://academic.oup.com/litthe/article-abstract/34/4/486/6029275 https://academic.oup.com/litthe/article-abstract/34/4/486/60...

stillconfused 3y ago
[dead]
palad1n 3y ago
Wow, I had no idea. Like I said, that was so long ago. Interesting the notes in the abstract of that paper, that he infused Christian and Buddhist ideas. It might be why I took to it so well.
vitiral 3y ago
He has translated many works from other ancient languages and is a trained Zen monk. In the spirit of Taoism he is likely a better translator than an intellectual. The work is brief. There is room for multiple translations and interpretations.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  > He has translated many works from other ancient languages Not really. Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching: he simply rewrote existing translations. As far as I can tell, the Book of Job translation is the only one made from the source text. I don’t think you understand how notorious Mitchell has been within the field of literary translation for decades now. > is a trained Zen monk. Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. As the linked paper underlines, choosing someone with a background in Zen to translate that foundational work of Taoism, was peculiar, but it is understandable within the context of a Western publishing market that wants to cash in on wisdom lit and doesn’t really care about the details of Asian religions. > There is room for multiple translations and interpretations. Attention is finite and marketing is dishonest. There are myriads of people out there for whom the Mitchell Tao te ching is the only one they will be exposed to, and they won’t even be aware that it isn’t a real translation and they will need to consult other translations in order to make up for that.
  - vitiral 3y ago
    > Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. > Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching This is incorrect for any Ancient Hebrew or Greek works. Genesis is listed as "translated". On the Psalms he says: I have translated fairly closely where that has been possible; but I have also paraphrased, expanded, contracted, deleted, shuffled the order of verses, and freely improvised on the themes of the originals. And then there's "Gospel According to Jesus", also listed as a translation. From Googling "does stephen mitchell know ancient greek" Some of his translations aren't, strictly speaking, translations, but adaptations. He knows Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, German, Italian and Danish, but he's also rewritten works in languages he doesn't know—Chinese, Sanskrit and Babylonian.
    - mnk47 3y ago
      > My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. It is still problematic, for the same reason that a translation of Christian work by a Muslim or a Mormon with no background in Christianity, in a language they're not familiar with, would raise eyebrows.
      - vitiral 3y ago
        It feels less problematic than those cases due to those religion's own views on truth and divine prophecy. Christianity largely views Muslim/Mormon views as a kind of Heresy. Toaism/Buddhism don't really map to this kind of thinking IIUC. I would also counter that a Muslim or Mormon's view of the Bible would probably be very useful, if for no other reason that they would have a alternative but still reverent lens on it; vs an intellectual's which contains little or no reverence. I found a Jew's (Stephen Mitchel's) translation of Jesus's writings to be very enlightening indeed!

stillconfused 3y ago

[dead]

palad1n 3y ago

Wow, I had no idea. Like I said, that was so long ago. Interesting the notes in the abstract of that paper, that he infused Christian and Buddhist ideas. It might be why I took to it so well.

vitiral 3y ago

He has translated many works from other ancient languages and is a trained Zen monk. In the spirit of Taoism he is likely a better translator than an intellectual. The work is brief. There is room for multiple translations and interpretations.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> He has translated many works from other ancient languages Not really. Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching: he simply rewrote existing translations. As far as I can tell, the Book of Job translation is the only one made from the source text. I don’t think you understand how notorious Mitchell has been within the field of literary translation for decades now. > is a trained Zen monk. Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. As the linked paper underlines, choosing someone with a background in Zen to translate that foundational work of Taoism, was peculiar, but it is understandable within the context of a Western publishing market that wants to cash in on wisdom lit and doesn’t really care about the details of Asian religions. > There is room for multiple translations and interpretations. Attention is finite and marketing is dishonest. There are myriads of people out there for whom the Mitchell Tao te ching is the only one they will be exposed to, and they won’t even be aware that it isn’t a real translation and they will need to consult other translations in order to make up for that.
- vitiral 3y ago
  > Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. > Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching This is incorrect for any Ancient Hebrew or Greek works. Genesis is listed as "translated". On the Psalms he says: I have translated fairly closely where that has been possible; but I have also paraphrased, expanded, contracted, deleted, shuffled the order of verses, and freely improvised on the themes of the originals. And then there's "Gospel According to Jesus", also listed as a translation. From Googling "does stephen mitchell know ancient greek" Some of his translations aren't, strictly speaking, translations, but adaptations. He knows Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, German, Italian and Danish, but he's also rewritten works in languages he doesn't know—Chinese, Sanskrit and Babylonian.
  - mnk47 3y ago
    > My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. It is still problematic, for the same reason that a translation of Christian work by a Muslim or a Mormon with no background in Christianity, in a language they're not familiar with, would raise eyebrows.
    - vitiral 3y ago
      It feels less problematic than those cases due to those religion's own views on truth and divine prophecy. Christianity largely views Muslim/Mormon views as a kind of Heresy. Toaism/Buddhism don't really map to this kind of thinking IIUC. I would also counter that a Muslim or Mormon's view of the Bible would probably be very useful, if for no other reason that they would have a alternative but still reverent lens on it; vs an intellectual's which contains little or no reverence. I found a Jew's (Stephen Mitchel's) translation of Jesus's writings to be very enlightening indeed!