tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post115864926041794489..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Scattered thoughts on the KJVWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1159185108825971632006-09-25T04:51:00.000-07:002006-09-25T04:51:00.000-07:00"if they consider Da Vinci Code as literature... t..."<I>if they consider Da Vinci Code as literature... theirs will be a minority view.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Don't count on it! There are a lot more people out there raving (in more senses than one, sometimes) about <I>The Da Vinci Code</I> than there are scholars defining and supporting the "cultural canon". But I think we can agree that, fortunately, these things are not decided by majority vote.<BR/><BR/>"<I>A more interesting question to ask is: is the elevated status of the KJV mere caprice or snobbery or herd-instinct, or is there a reason that so many people who speicalize in studying literature esteem it so highly?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that I would quite go for the first alternative. I would add other parts to the description here: tradition, and originally royal and ecclesiastical sponsorship. I guess you would go for the latter. But if so, what is the reason? The whole thrust of this thread has been to push for some good reason to be given.<BR/><BR/>PS Don't worry about shocking Bulbul, see (adults only!) <A HREF="http://bulbulovo.blogspot.com/2006/08/iebh.html" REL="nofollow">this posting on his own blog</A>.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1159139802625747262006-09-24T16:16:00.000-07:002006-09-24T16:16:00.000-07:00I think that to one who has kissed passionately, m...<I>I think that to one who has kissed passionately, my description is perfectly clear and rings true.</I><BR/>Well then I guess it's the fault of this reader and his linguistic-obsessed mind that he cannot agree with your position :o)<BR/><BR/><I>Shir ha-Shirim can be viewed as an allegory, certainly, but it is also a highly erotic love poem</I><BR/>I'd be the last person to dispute that.<BR/><BR/><I>something that clearly comes out in the KJV and not in the NLT</I><BR/>Alas, I am not sufficiently familiar with NLT to comment on this. But I have seen my share of Canticles translation to know that there are many cases when the translators ignored the aforementioned aspect of this poem. In the light of the enormous learning you have displayed here and elsewhere, sir, I will gladly accept your judgement.bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1159112186316106922006-09-24T08:36:00.000-07:002006-09-24T08:36:00.000-07:00I assure you, sir, I have read the entire paragrap...I assure you, sir, I have read the entire paragraph.<BR/>While I cannot comment on NLT in general, I have the following to say concerning SOL 1:2:<BR/><I>Coverdale and the Authorized Version embedded in their readings the implication that the kissing will be of the frankest and most mutual kind: mouth to mouth</I><BR/>As opposed to...? Do we really know that much about the practice of kissing in the ancient Israelite community?<BR/>As for the "mutuality" - to quote a poet, even in kissing, there is a giving and a receiving side. And considering the nature of the text I would say that "one-sided abundance" is the perfect description of what is going on between the Bridegroom (God) and the Bride (Israel, humanity).<BR/>Even if I would accept that "kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" does indeed imply mutuality, it does not cease to imply the abundance and intensity conveyed by the structure. The KJV translation keeps the former while losing the latter. NLT loses the former while keeping the latter. Which is better when both are equally bad?bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1159078717386580542006-09-23T23:18:00.000-07:002006-09-23T23:18:00.000-07:00By 1611 the English rendering had become completel...<I>By 1611 the English rendering had become completely literal: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. Now to the modern ear, this has logical and and linguistic weaknesses: To kiss with a kiss is tautologous; even more with a kiss of the mouth. Consider instead the NLT's Kiss me and kiss me again. The NLT avoids the rebarbatively alien tautologies with a recognizable and acceptable phrase (although it shares the error of Coverdale's Bibles). But in rejecting in the alien and introducing the familiar, the modern version has ceased to be a translation.</I><BR/>Hm, what a strange definition of translation.<BR/>"To kiss with a kiss" is a wonderful example of a structure where the verb is amplified by a following noun, known from many Semitic languages, especially Arabic. It would be most appropriately referred to as an idiom. To translate an idiom using an idiom is the best translation practice there can be. Now we might argue about whether "Kiss me and kiss me again" is the most suitable one. I quite like it, or perhaps something along the lines of "Kiss me again and again" would be good, too. But to say that by using an idiom the translation "has ceases to be a translation" is simply ridiculous.<BR/><BR/><I>One must go beyond a dictionary, for the feel of a word. There is some artistry, some sense of weighing a word for its various qualities.</I><BR/>Amen.<BR/><BR/><I>Were students to always use annotated editions, it would hardly explain the popularity of unannotated editions (such as facsimiles of the Shakesperian folios and quartos</I><BR/>Oh the many shelves of libraries where the volumes stacked have never been opened but only laid out as a symbol of vanity and fruitless ambition!<BR/>In other words, not everything bought is actually read.bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1158832226133820932006-09-21T02:50:00.000-07:002006-09-21T02:50:00.000-07:00Anon, isn't there another alternative: "Read the B...Anon, isn't there another alternative: "<I>Read the Bible in an English version which</I>" does not fall "<I>short of literary greatness</I>" but has not yet been "<I>widely recognized as literature proper</I>". Of course the question is whether there is any such translation, but you did mention Alter's version as a candidate. But it seems that your only criterion for literary greatness is "<I>widely recognized</I>", except that I'm sure you would qualify that by accepting only certain people as qualified to recognise this, because if you went for a strict democratic vote you would probably have to count <I>The Da Vinci Code</I> as great literature! So, don't we come back to a subjective and elitist definition of literature, rather than the objective one some of us have been asking for?Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com