Der Koran by Rudi ParetReview by: Franz RosenthalJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1967), pp. 309-310Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/597728 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 00:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.178 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:55:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

Der Koran. -Ubersetzung von RIuII PARET. Pp. 524. Stuttgart, Berlin, KIoln, Mainz: W. KOHLHAMMER VERLAG, 1966 (appeared in four instalments between 1963 and 1966).

Translations of the Qur'an, once a rarity, are now coming forth from the presses of the world in rapid succession. Most are intended for the faithful. Some are meant primarily for scholars. The variety of approaches in the latter category is worth noting. The French translation of R. Blachere stresses the historical approach. A. J. Arberry's celebrated English rendering dispenses with any efforts at philological penetration and attempts the awesome task of "imitating, how- ever imperfectly, those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns, which are the glory and the sublimity of the Koran." The posthumously published Rus- sian version by I. Y. Krachkovsky provides full annotation and makes the results of modern re- search available to the reader. Now, we have the German entry in front of us. Paret's trans- lation has been in the making for over thirty years. Its aims were first outlined by Paret in a short paper which he contributed to the Festschriift E. Littmann, 121-30 (Leiden 1935). The outline has now been fleshed out according to most of the earlier specifications. The resulting translation is clear, readable, scholarly in that it tries to warn the reader time and again of uncertainties and pitfalls, and substantially as accurate a rendering of the original meaning of the text as medieval and modern scholarship combined permit to make it. The first two objectives are achieved by the use of a precise modern idiom that leaves no room for fuzzy archaizing language which all too often serves the purpose of masking a translator's lack of comprehension, and by the ingenious employment of explanatory fill-ins put within brackets. The other two objectives, which are Paret's principal objectives, are realized by the judicious study of the internal evidence of the Qur'an, by constant attention to the most sensible of many possible choices, and by not glossing over obvious diffi- culties of understanding. Every word and sentence in Paret's work gives the impression of having been carefully weighed and thought through be-

fore it was put on paper. This is all one has a right to expect, whether one agrees with the result in each case or not.

The extent of the residue of ignorance and doubt is made clear by question marks within the text, with some additional such question marks in the footnotes, and by footnotes introduced with "oder" which suggest alternative translations and thus indicate doubt as to the true meaning of a passage. The ten printed pages (pp. 237-47) of the translation of al-Kahf count close to forty such cases about evenly divided between the two categories. The two pages (pp. 488-90) of al- Muddaththir, although it is a si'rah of a very different character, furnish the corresponding number of about eleven cases. Considering further that the frequent addition of the transliterated Arabic text and the numerous footnotes giving a literal translation indicate doubt in at least some instances, and considering also that there are passages whose interpretation may not be as clear- cut as it seems to be, we cannot fail to realize that the distance which separates us from a full com- prehension of the original meaning of the Holy Book is clearly immense, and it may never be bridged.

Paret leans throughout toward the conservative side in his interpretations. This is as it should be. It is rather tempting for scholars to approach the Qur'an as they do documents of more remote times, such as the Ugaritic epics, for which there exists no traditional interpretation, or the Old Testament, where the right to disregard tradition wherever such a course seems indicated is no longer questioned. Hard as it is to believe, the existence of a correct traditional understanding of the Qur'an is often in doubt. Determination of the intended antecedents of pronominal ele- ments, which causes so much serious trouble, may have become a matter of dispute as soon as the passages in question were revealed, but there is also much else. Yet, no translator would feel himself to be on sufficiently safe ground in pro- posing, for instance, that isbir nafsaka maa (18: 28/27) simply means: "join !," or furutan, in the same verse, something like "dropped, worth- less," or that rajman in rajman bi-l-ghaybi (18:

309

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.178 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:55:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

310 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 87. S (1967)

22/21), goes back to a Semitic root meaning "to mutter," or the like. The risk of erring on the side of tradition is much smaller. As far as I can see, Paret offers few, if any, revolutionary new interpretations.

There are no explanations, philological com- ments, justifications of interpretations, and so on, beyond some occasional notes introduced by "d. h." ( i. e.). Paret promises an additional volume to remedy this shortcoming. As it is, quite a few questions come to mind. The reader can hardly be expected to know whether "Sundus- und Istabraq-Brokat" (18:31/30) are two kinds of brocade known to everybody or not known to anybody. More important, without a word of ex- planation, he cannot make much sense of Moses' satisfaction at finding out that the fish he meant to eat for luncheon had swum away (18:64/63). On the other hand, " steinigen" (18 :20/19) is paraphrased in a footnote as "mit Steinwiirfen verjagen," which may be correct but is hardly a necessary comment. One wonders why Paret de- cided on the specific meaning for ka-dhhlika in 18 :19/18, "(wihrend sie) auf diese Weise (schlie- fen)," in a context which is clearly a perfunctory resumption of verse 12/11. The difference between translations adopted in the text and "literal" translations indicated in the notes is not always

clear (for instance, in 18 :32/31, " legten Getreide- felder zwischen ihnen an": W[6rtlich] machten Getreide zwischen ihnen). And why is the literal translation missing in 18 :42/40, " zerfallen dalag " (khhwiyatun 'ala 'urfshih') ? The Arabist can surmise why Paret has added transliterated Arabic salat after "Gebet" in all appropriate cases, but for him, this addition is superfluous, as are others of a similar nature. And again, why translate two different words (nadd and da') in the same verse 18 :52/50 by the same German word " beten "? No doubt, Paret can provide all the answers, and a good number of them, it is hoped, will be spelled out in the promised commentary.

With Paret's translation, and his commentary, a reliable guide toward a serious study of the Qur'an will become available to those who do not know Arabic, and it is worth any Arabist's while to look into the translation when dealing with any Qur'anic problem. Another important task of Qur'anic scholarship is to provide for an anno- tated translation which will explain, in a sound philological manner, the later history of the understanding of the Qur'an in Islam.

FRANZ ROSENTIAL YALE UNIVERSITY

Analyse conceptuelle du Coran sur cartes per- forees. By MICHEL ALLARD, MAY ELZIERE,

JEAN-CLAuDE GARDIN, FRANCIS HOURS.

(Pcole Pratique des ilautes etudes, VIe Sec- tion, et Centre d'Analyse Documentaire pour l'Archeologie du Centre National de la Re- cherche Scientique.) I. Code. Pp. 110, index. II. Commentaire. Pp. 1887. Plastic box con- taining 431 punched cards. Paris: MOUTON

AND CO., 1963 (actually 1964). 160 F.

All knowledge is now due to be recorded on punched cards. At first thought it might seem surprising that the scripture of the Muslims should be chosen for such a fate at this early stage in the game, and by non-Muslims. But it is understandable in the light of modern French concern for fundamental Islamic studies and the suitability of the Qur'&n for this kind of treat- ment. Because so many of its propositions are

repeated in widely scattered verses, often with variations of expression and in different contexts, it is only by synopsis that we can learn what the Book as a whole says; and this feature creates the need for indexes of context. Moreover, such indexes are practicable, because the number of broad concepts employed is not too great, if they can be adequately grouped according to general meaning, without regard to the nuances of lan- guage and context at this primary stage of the synoptic process. In the past, in addition to the lexical concordances of FlUgel and tAbd al-Bdq!, we have had subject indexes in conventional book form, such as those of Stanton and Roberts. But these works, useful as they are, do not readily take us beyond a review of each word or concept, one at a time. What punched cards can perform with vastly greater range and speed is to find the places where two or more concepts are brought into relation with each other.

The mechanical principles of this " analyse com-

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.178 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:55:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions