We had to memorise verses in school so, for regularity's sake, we were all required to have the KJV. And since it's what I had, it's what I took to church, but there were other poeple in Sunday school classes who used different versions. The NIV is the one I'm most familiar with, and I remember thinking that sometimes it different drive the point home quite the way the ol' KJV did, but man I would so much rather be trying to memorize that version.
I was just curious, mostly, if this...sloganizing, or whatever you want to call it, was sneaking into accepted/acceptable Bible tranlsations. If there was, out there somewhere, a version made up of catchy phrases. It sort of made me fear for the state of English tranlsations of anything; I think somewhere in my rant to John I likened it to translating Beowulf into a rap song and calling "translation for the modern age." Colloquial speech does not have to set the standard for the language, people
( ... )
"Also, I don't think that's something you'd see Hindus doing to the Upanishads or Moslems doing to the Quran, and I wonder about what that says."
Well, that's a funny thing about the Bible. Every other holy book I can think of is still read in its original language. Modern Arabic might not sound exactly like Muhammad's Arabic, but it's still Arabic. Even American Jewish kids are required to learn some Hebrew. As far as I know, the Christian Bible is the only major holy book that is widely read in languages other than the original. With other major religions it's just not an issue.
Do you think if they were more commonly read in English they'd be following the same slogan-y trend?
Is it a language thing - the lack of translation keeps it from becoming "modernized" - or maybe a religion thing - other religions simply don't proselytize the way Christians do - or a culture thing - sterotypical Western commercialism?
If a text doesn't have to be translated, then no translator has to interpret passages that don't quite work in his or her own language. I don't know that it's necessarily an English-language issue; however, we Americans do like our slogans. We don't have the patience for lengthy or nuanced explanations, as the state of American politics and mass-consumption religion will attest.
Anyway, I think other holy books warn against translation for precisely this reason.
Comments 10
I was just curious, mostly, if this...sloganizing, or whatever you want to call it, was sneaking into accepted/acceptable Bible tranlsations. If there was, out there somewhere, a version made up of catchy phrases. It sort of made me fear for the state of English tranlsations of anything; I think somewhere in my rant to John I likened it to translating Beowulf into a rap song and calling "translation for the modern age." Colloquial speech does not have to set the standard for the language, people ( ... )
Reply
Well, that's a funny thing about the Bible. Every other holy book I can think of is still read in its original language. Modern Arabic might not sound exactly like Muhammad's Arabic, but it's still Arabic. Even American Jewish kids are required to learn some Hebrew. As far as I know, the Christian Bible is the only major holy book that is widely read in languages other than the original. With other major religions it's just not an issue.
Reply
Is it a language thing - the lack of translation keeps it from becoming "modernized" - or maybe a religion thing - other religions simply don't proselytize the way Christians do - or a culture thing - sterotypical Western commercialism?
Something else entirely?
What do you think?
Reply
Anyway, I think other holy books warn against translation for precisely this reason.
Reply
Leave a comment