Thread replies: 2
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: article-2319841-19A1F240000005DC-832_964x641.jpg (77KB, 964x641px) Image search:
[Google]
77KB, 964x641px
First, a metaphor for God (all these statements should of course be understood "as it were" not "as such," for even a high-school education would undermine that): Dionysius the Areopagite calls physical light an "echo" of God. I will use light as an analogy: God's essence is akin to the *point source*. His energies are akin to the *radiation*. The Trinity is akin to a threefold spectrum that comprises the light, or primary colors if you will.
As was previously pointed out here, the Bible, in contrast to pagan mythologies, is concerned with internal and existentialist conflict, not so much conflict of might or craft. Even Samson's conflict is not about might or craft, he is not outwitted, his conflict is whether to reveal his secret knowing what that will entail. But what you might not know is that the Bible is also the first subject of comprehensive literary examination. Prior to the rise of Christianity, literary theory in the West examined many things, plot structure, spiritual metaphors (so-and-so represents the soul, so-and-so the body, etc.), BUT even though characters often had distinct, individual psychologies, there was no sophisticated analysis of their psychologies. Christian exegesis brought literary analysis to an entirely new height, sifting scrupulously through what was going on in the heads (even unconsciously) of the various characters, both through regular methods, and through literary symbols; now literary symbols were examined before, especially by Platonists, but they were always applied to have general spiritual meaning, not as subtle expressions of a character's psychology.
>>
File: a4015a5e3ab1852099b437cf002b3bef.jpg (71KB, 989x742px) Image search:
[Google]
71KB, 989x742px
I have noticed people putting down the King James Bible as antiquated here. Please note that the King James Bible is not a "Bible of its time". It completely disregards the popular, baroque, intricate style of the period, and follows very closely to the Bible's minimalist style and vocabulary, even following the tense of the Bible (the Gospels, for instance, often use present tense in places where it would seem out of place to us). It is a very accurate Bible compared to most, and if you can parse it you would not go wrong in reading it, even if some terms are archaic. The King James Bible's literary qualities have nothing to do with a baroque method of translation, rather they have to do with adhering to the Bible's idiom and phrasing, which are quite beautiful.
King James translates "Said in his heart" as just that. NRSV uses "he said to himself" to translate this idiom.
King James translates "seed" as just that, NRSV translates it as "semen" or "descendants"
King James translates "he knew her" as just that, NRSV uses awkward terms like "he consummated their marriage" to translate it.
King James translates "slack not thy hands" literally, NRSV changes it to "do not abandon".
King James translates "thine heart be lifted up" literally, NRSV translates it as "exalt yourself"
King James translates literally "mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water," NRSV uses "my eyes flow with tears.". They deleted the repetition of "my eye"--which is not just stylistic, but an expression of intense emotion--it's not the "Nevermore" of Poe's Raven, it's the "Never" of Shakespeare's King Lear.
The NRSV, as many contemporary translations, is compromised. The King James version keeps the frequent use of "and" in both the Old and New Testament, the NRSV deletes the use of the word as much as possible for no reason other than a stylistic choice, which in fact impairs the writing (for an example of how "and" can be integral to a style, see Cormac McCarthy, who was heavily influenced by the King James prose).
Thread posts: 2
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2