wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 Recently Benjamin Hoff published a new translation of the Tao Te Ching. See: https://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Tao-Ching-Philosophical-Masterwork/dp/1419755501 How trustworthy and original is this one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirPalomides Posted May 16, 2022 Haven't read it, but it looks like Hoff is certain that he has found the Real Meaning of the text, unlike all those other sillies, and moreover has seen fit to remove entire chapters. Based on that it sounds like another exercise in self-aggrandizement and marketing in the Tao Te Ching mini-industry. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, SirPalomides said: Haven't read it, but it looks like Hoff is certain that he has found the Real Meaning of the text, unlike all those other sillies, and moreover has seen fit to remove entire chapters. Based on that it sounds like another exercise in self-aggrandizement and marketing in the Tao Te Ching mini-industry. Yes - that sure is what it looks like. But is Hoff correct in his claim that the pre-writing brush characters often had a different meaning than the traditional characters in which they are transcribed in the common scholarly translations? And further that those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirPalomides Posted May 16, 2022 14 minutes ago, wandelaar said: Yes - that sure is what it looks like. But is Hoff correct in his claim that the pre-writing brush characters often had a different meaning than the traditional characters in which they are transcribed in the common scholarly translations? And further that those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff? I have no idea, but in my experience with oft-retranslated books (Laozi, Bible, etc). usually claims about a new translation blowing open some previously obscured quality of the text prove to be exaggerated, if not entirely empty. Moreover, when we are dealing with an ancient, influential text such as the DDJ, which has taken a life of its own in the hands of numerous scribes and interpreters, the way the text has been carried on and read throughout the ages is more important than trying to uncover the author's true intent, which is probably impossible anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 Still - I'm curious whether or not Hoff is correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, wandelaar said: Benjamin Hoff … Tao Te Ching ..… How …. original is this one? I read the sample chapters (Ch 1-4) in the preview. Imo they are in the same range as all the other translations. Edited May 16, 2022 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 Something that is radically different from other translations is that Hoff has deleted some chapters. He'd better come up with some very convincing arguments for that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) Does the Hoffman book provide the two sets of characters? Edited May 16, 2022 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 4 hours ago, SirPalomides said: … Hoff … has seen fit to remove entire chapters. … 13 minutes ago, wandelaar said: … Hoff has deleted some chapters. … Shock horror. Does it say which chapters? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, wandelaar said: … is Hoff correct in his claim that … those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff? I would think that it is highly unlikely. Sinologists do research the changes in meaning of characters over time. Edited May 16, 2022 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) I have seen no characters in the preview, and I'm wondering what sources Hoff used to determine their (differences in) meaning. Edited May 16, 2022 by wandelaar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, wandelaar said: I have seen no characters in the preview … Neither have I. Nor did I see any mention of providing the ‘real’ characters in the preview (but I did not read all of the preview, as I found it a rather boring piece of self-aggrandisement with hardly any real info). Edited May 16, 2022 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 6 minutes ago, wandelaar said: … I'm wondering what sources he used to determine their (differences in) meaning. Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 “the characters used in the Guodian text created much controversy between the modern scholars who have tried to determine which modern characters they represent.” (DIO) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, Cobie said: “the characters used in the Guodian text created much controversy between the modern scholars who have tried to determine which modern characters they represent.” (DIO) That proves that Hoff is right and wrong at the same time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, wandelaar said: That proves that Hoff is right and wrong at the same time. Scrap the DIO comment. Edited May 16, 2022 by Cobie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Cobie said: Scrap the DIO comment. What do you mean? It would be nice to know where we can read about the controversy you mentioned before. Edited May 16, 2022 by wandelaar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 The pre-brush characters do look very different http://www.daoisopen.com/A9toA10Chapters232.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 17 minutes ago, wandelaar said: What do you mean? I disliked his audio sufficiently to now feel prejudiced against the Hoff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, wandelaar said: It would be nice to know where we can read about the controversy you mentioned before. Yes. I am searching but can’t find anything. Edited May 17, 2022 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 Now this brings up two further questions: 1. Were those characters indeed not written with a brush. 2. If they were not written with a brush, is there a dictionary or something were one can look up the meaning of those characters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 (edited) The calligraphy brush … Legend has it that the brush was invented by Meng Tian (? - 210 BC), http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/culture/2011-02/17/content_12040373.htm … the oldest known version of the text, … Guodian (郭店) … dated prior to 300 BC. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tao_Te_Ching Edited May 16, 2022 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 Quote The calligraphy brush has a long history in China. Legend has it that the brush was invented by Meng Tian (? - 210 BC), a general under the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC). However, primitive painted pottery contains decorative designs painted by tools resembling a brush. Visible stains or brush marks clearly remain in certain places on the pottery. This evidence suggests that the brush may have predated written language itself. Expanded quote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted May 16, 2022 The Guodian was not written in brush (see DIO picture). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted May 16, 2022 https://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/journal/articles/v59p253.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
