While CJ is embarking on a longterm project (OEDILF), Willis Barnstone, aged 76, will be finishing a 10-year project next year translating the New Testament. He says, "If the Bible sings in Greek and Hebrew, it must sing in English; otherwise you're not being faithful to the source text or the English reader." He is an authority on ancient languages, as well as a noted poet.

Here is an example: This is the Last Supper according to the King James Version:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives."

Barnstone's translation:

"As they were eating, Yeshua took the matzot, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his students, and said,
Take it and eat.
This is my body.
Then he took the cup and after giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying,
Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the convenant, poured out for the many for forgiveness of sins.
I tell you, I will no longer drink this fruit of the vine until that day I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
And they sang a psalm and wnet out to the Mountain of Olives."

What do you think? He has converted all proper names into their 1st Century Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin counterparts - Yeshua (Jesus), Miryam (Mary), and Biet Lehem (Bethlehem). "Disciples" becomes "students." On the names he offers a parallel: "Can you imagine if we read the story of 'The Aeneid' and all names were in Chinese?"

When He took up the bread and He blessed it,
Metaphorically He reassessed it.
Two thousand years later
His fame's so much greater.
Not one there could ever have guessed it!


Oh, yeah! Rewriting the Bible in limerick form... That'll gain me a huge following and if I'm smart I'll start running now!

Save that for another lifetime. If you do the BILF in this lifetime you're pretty sure not to get another.

Tell you what...we can do 2 of these projects at once on wordcraft. Virge, since you named it and all, you can be in charge of the BILF.

The 23rd Psalm:

The Lord is my shepherd, you know.
In righteousness always I'll go.
I'm in the high clover,
My cup runneth over.
(My Father upstairs says "Hello!")

Oh, yeah. I'm goin' straight to hell...


(What do you say, Virge? Care to become Editor-in-Chief of the BILF? I imagine it would be a sure way of suddenly receiving lots and lots of interesting emails!)

I'd have to stop internet chatting.
My time would be spent in combatting
those folks without brain
who call to complain
that my BILF contains too much begatting.

Not bad, CJ! I think I will call QT for another article!

John's Gospel is written as planned
In terms that we all understand;
It reaches our hearts
(We linguistic upstarts):
"In the beginning was the word ... and ...."

Not bad! Virge, I have confidence in your carrying this out.

The story of Ruth is amazing,
As daughter-in-law she's ablazing!
Other women are cleaning,
While our Ruth helps with gleaning.
Today's women, like Ruth, we are raising!

quote:

---

Here is an example: This is the Last Supper according to the King James Version:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives."

---

This is a question that's been bugging me for years: why are the its in this passage and other seemingly random words in the KJV italicized? Is it because they are implied or interpolated words that weren't in the original Greek?

Quote "...Is it because they are implied or interpolated words that weren't in the original Greek?..."

According to my old RI teacher, that's exactly what they are. The compilers of the King James's bible put in certain words in order to make the English read more easily. However, in order to show that these words were their own creation and not those of the original authors, they italicised them.

In a way rather a wasted effort to my mind, since the source material they used had been re-written so many times, from tales that were often only half-remembered, that the inclusion of the odd word is neither here nor there.

Of course, in those days people had less knowledge of the true history of religion and were inclined to believe that everything written in the bible was the unadulterated and true word of God and were thus more reluctant to alter the "holy" words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Willis Barnstone, aged 76, will be finishing a 10-year project next year translating the New Testament. He says, "If the Bible sings in Greek and Hebrew, it must sing in English; otherwise you're not being faithful to the source text or the English reader."

---

But the New Testament doesn't sing in Greek. According to Paul Sellew, Mark is written in informal conversational Greek, and everything happens "right away" or "right then" (euthus). Luke is a novel. John is a patching together of 'Signs' stories, with at least two authors, or an author and a redactor. Paul's letters are letters. The Hebrew Bible contains poems and songs, but the New Testament is more...testimonial.

"He is an authority on ancient languages, as well as a noted poet."
That should say it all. He's worked on doing what he wanted to do.

"If the Bible sings in Greek and Hebrew, it must sing in English; otherwise you're not being faithful to the source text or the English reader."
When he promotes his pet project this rationalization sounds better than "I did it because it makes me happy." I suspect the "sing" and "faithful" words are carefully chosen for his target audience (but some may regard me as cynical ).

Anyone interested in the New Testament may want to check out "The Complete Gospels", edited by Robert Miller and published by Harper Collins. The translations -- dubbed Scholar's Version -- are intended to convey the tone and style of the individual writers, rather than trying to make the whole set stylistically consistent. For example, in many versions the translation the word 'euthus' in Mark alternates among words like 'immediately', 'then', 'and then', 'right away', and 'right then' so the text doesn't sound repetitive. But the text is repetitive, and you hear that breathlessness in the Scholar's Version translation.

Speaking of bible translations, where's the spot that cryptically suggests that Shakespeare may have had a hand in the AV? Something about counting 40-some spades in to find the word, "shake," then 40-some spaces from the end is the word, "peer." Anybody know what I'm talking about?

Here are a couple of pages that mention it.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/res0309b.htm
http://www.fulmerford.com/strobe/reviews/shakes.html
Since there has been so much fuss about Shakespeare not having had enough time to write all the works attributed to him, it seems strange that people should suggest he was helping with bible translations.
Seeing significance in a single instance of a purported pattern is an excellent example of apophenia.

quote:

---

Seeing significance in a single instance of a purported pattern is an excellent example of apophenia.

---

Virge, what a great word! I see apophenia everywhere.

Virge, what a great word! I see apophenia everywhere.
Yes, I agree that it's a great word! I could only find it in tsuwm's dictionary, apart from a few specialized ones. The Skeptic's Dictionary had it, and I haven't seen that one before; I have posted a link to it in Links for Linguaphiles.

As for you skeptics here, well, I will have to read Barnstone's version before I can make a judgement. However, I do think the words can sing even if they are written in "informal conversational Greek."

One thing I really like about his new version is the authenticity. For example, I like the use of Yeshua, Miryam, and Biet Lehem, rather than Jesus, Mary and Bethlehem. Being Jewish, I had always questioned the breaking of bread on the Seder. After all, bread has leavening! Matzot is much more believable.

Kalleh, please explain some Hebrew to me! I have a box of Manischewitz matzos in my lap at the present time. Why do you say "matzot," my friend Eugene (also Jewish) says "matzoh," and the box on the floor (well, it WAS on my lap) says, "matzo?"

Asa the perplexed and in need of Moshe Ben Maimon

One thing I _really_ like about his new version is the authenticity. For example, I like the use of Yeshua, Miryam, and Biet Lehem, rather than Jesus, Mary and Bethlehem.

I can see doing this for the Old Testament, but the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and Jesus is the English version of the Greek word for the Hebrew word Yeshua. And Biet Lehem is just confusing; it's like calling Florence Firenze.

Being Jewish, I had _always_ questioned the breaking of bread on the _Seder_. After all, bread has leavening! Matzot is much more believable.

Which gospel d'yer read? In Mark, Mathew and Luke the Last Supper is the Seder, and Jesus is crucified the day after. In John, however, Jesus dies on Passover, when the lambs are being sacrified in the Temple, making the Last Supper the day before Passover. So it could be matzoh in one case and bread in the other!

But I'll always argue for a translation that sounds to me, now, as much like it sounded to them, then, as possible.

This is one of the questions I had about The Passion of the Christ: sure, the Romans were speaking Latin and the Judeans were speaking Aramaic, but when the Romans spoke to the Judeans, wouldn't it probably have been in Greek?

"when the Romans spoke to the Judeans, wouldn't it probably have been in Greek?"

___________________________________

Well, not according to "The Life of Brian!" Don't you guys remember the Roman soldier's grammar lesson?

Naturally, you are correct, since the "lingua Fanca" wasn't Latin. Hmmmm... How does one say "Lingua Franca" in Greek?

Kalleh, please explain some Hebrew to me! I have a box of Manischewitz matzos in my lap at the present time. Why do you say "matzot," my friend Eugene (also Jewish) says "matzoh," and the box on the floor (well, it WAS on my lap) says, "matzo?"

Asa, it is confusing to me, too! For example, there are about 4 ways of spelling Hannukah! Shu, can you help???

Neveu, Passover starts at sundown on the previous day. My understanding most certainly is that the last supper was a Seder and that matzoh should have been eaten. However, I am not Christian, and so I don't know the new Testament as well as the Christians do.

I just think we should give this guy, who has spent 10 years of his life on this, a chance. He is a brilliant, talented man, and he deserves as much. If, after that, you don't like his version, so be it. It really is a matter of personal preference. I think some people may be outraged that somebody actually is doing another translation of the Bible...just like some people will be outraged about the OEDILF project.

please explain some Hebrew to me! I have a box of Manischewitz matzos in my lap at the present time. Why do you say "matzot," my friend Eugene (also Jewish) says "matzoh," and the box on the floor (well, it WAS on my lap) says, "matzo?"

Well, first of all Hebrew is written in an entirely different alphabet and there are more than a few ways to transliterate the word matzah which is spelled m.tz.h without vowels. First the final vowel is qamats which can either be an /a/ or an /o/ depending on a whole bunch of complicated rules. matzah is a feminine word and it takes a plural ending of -ot, thus matzot is the plural of matsah. Another problem is that there are two major, differing pronunciations of Hebrew: the Sephardic (or Spanish) and the Ashkenazic (or German). Sephardic is more or less what they use in the State of Israel and most US synagogues. The termination -ot in Ashkenazic is not pronounced /ot/ but /@s/, so /matz@/ ~ /matz@s/.

As for what a Jewish carpenter would've eaten at a Passover seder, it most probably would've been matzot. But then I'm neither Christian nor Jewish.

Neveu, Passover _starts_ at sundown on the _previous_ day. My understanding most certainly is that the last supper was a Seder and that matzoh should have been eaten. However, I am not Christian, and so I don't know the new Testament as well as the Christians do.

Yes you do. Historically, you are probably correct that the last supper was a Passover meal. (I don't want to call it a Seder because I don't know if it is historically accurate. Seder as we know it may be a more modern development. All of my sources refer to it as the Passover meal) In Judea at that time the day before the Passover meal was called the Day of Preparation. This is when the lambs were brought to the temple and slaughtered. Then the families took the lamb home and celebrated the Passover meal that evening (which was, as you point out, the next day, the day of Passover). Mark has the last supper as the Passover meal. John has no mention of the Passover meal in his description of the last supper, and Jesus does not reinterpret the symbolic Passover foods in a new way, as he does in Mark. In John, the Jewish leaders will not enter Pilate's residence for Jesus' trial lest they become ritually defiled and unable to eat the Passover meal. Clearly, the Jesus has been arrested before the Passover meal. Finally, the crucifixion takes place on the Day of Preparation, and Jesus expires as the lambs are being slaughtered in the temple. John was written after the Christians were expelled from the synagogues in the 90's, so this can be read as an attempt to distance Christianity from Judaism, as well as an attempt to argue that Christianity supersedes Judaism: Jesus as the Lamb of God.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, and I respect your opinion, and the efforts of Prof. Barnstone. It's just that I think that this story -- the historical, cultural story -- is so interesting and this is exactly what gets lost when somebody does yet another poetic rewrite of the Bible. I was raised Lake-Wobegon Lutheran just north of you, where I got a thorough indoctrination in the King James and Revised Standard Edition Bibles. Reading the Scholar's Version translation was an epiphany for me. Best of luck to Prof. Barnstone, but whatever its literary merits I think his version should come with some kind of disclaimer, like "Warning: This is not translation. This is a poetic interpretation by one person."

On matso, matsoh: I would have thought the final vowel was holem to give those two possibilities. (I can't find a pointed Hebrew image, after cursory search.) Normally plural -ot corresponds to singular -ah with qames, but that vowel can't ever be read as [O] in this position. Why are matso, matsoh so much more common than matsa, matsah?

I just checked with a friend who knows. Ashkenazic pronuciation of qamatz in this environment is /O/. And that is how it's pointed, not holam, but qamatz.

Seder as we know it may be a more modern development. All of my sources refer to it as the Passover meal

The definition of a 'Seder' is a Passover meal, I believe. Though, I agree that it has most undoubtedly evolved over the years.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, and I respect your opinion, and the efforts of Prof. Barnstone. It's just that I think that this story -- the historical, cultural story -- is so interesting and this is exactly what gets lost when somebody does yet another poetic rewrite of the Bible.

Just as I've learned to distance myself from political discussions on this board, I feel the same for religious discussions, which this is approaching. So, as with other subjects on this board, we will agree to disagree on this, I guess.

Doesn't "seder" mean "order" in Hebrew? Thus the Seder/Passover meal is simply a statement of the order of the ritual and prayers to be offered when celebating Passover.

I have no idea when it became standardized in its present form.

Yes, Hab, it does mean "order" in Hebrew, and, in fact, the Seder is very ordered.

I don't know when it was standardized...but I bet I can find out. I couldn't find the answer on the Web, but our daughter co-edited 2 books on the Seder so I am sure she must know. I will find out.

At dinnertime, Jesus took bread
And blessed it, and broke it, and said,
"Take, eat; here's my body,
And this here hot toddy'
S my blood. Now I'll rise from the dead."

Welcome, Creeping Jenny!

I see I forgot to ask my daughter Hab's question. I will send her an e-mail now!

quote:

At dinnertime, Jesus took bread
And blessed it, and broke it, and said,
"Take, eat; here's my body,
And this here hot toddy'
S my blood. Now I'll rise from the dead."

The Bible in Limerick format! Now there's a translation I can get behind. At least it's as accurate as Barnstone's.