PDA

View Full Version : The Secret of Psalm 46...



Purple Sparkler
18th-August-2005, 10:25 AM
Not trying to start a huge debate or anything, but a friend sent me the link to this article and I thought it was interesting, so I'm sharing it with you lot. Warning- it's quite long.
http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html

Dreadful Scathe
18th-August-2005, 10:18 PM
eh :confused:

Dance Demon
18th-August-2005, 11:57 PM
eh :confused:

:yeah:

ducasi
19th-August-2005, 12:23 AM
eh :confused:
I think the lecture can be summarised as "some clever people have done some clever things with numbers." (Oh, and "Shakespeare might actually have been Francis Bacon, or someone else.") :nice:

That about cover it? :wink:

bigdjiver
19th-August-2005, 12:41 AM
...That about cover it? :wink:Not quite. Translation is always difficult enough, but when the text is poetry or lyrics it gets really tricky. Long before I heard theories about Shakespeare I was struck by the poetic natuse of some of the King James text. From memory: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, yet, verily, I say unto you. Never, in all his glory, was Solomon attired as one of these.

I thought, even then, that there was a poet involved in the translation. So, when translating the Psalms, why not call in one of the foremost poets of the age?

ducasi
19th-August-2005, 12:48 AM
I thought, even then, that there was a poet involved in the translation. So, when translating the Psalms, why not call in one of the foremost poets of the age? Indeed, I missed that part: "The person or persons who may or may not have been Shakespeare, may or may not have contributed to the creation of the KJV. But if so, there's a contrived joke in there, if you know where to look." A bit like an "Easter Egg" as found in some computer software.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the KJV was just a revised version of an earlier translation of the Bible into English. I'll have to look that up.

Baruch
19th-August-2005, 03:20 AM
Not quite. Translation is always difficult enough, but when the text is poetry or lyrics it gets really tricky. Long before I heard theories about Shakespeare I was struck by the poetic natuse of some of the King James text. From memory: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, yet, verily, I say unto you. Never, in all his glory, was Solomon attired as one of these.

I thought, even then, that there was a poet involved in the translation. So, when translating the Psalms, why not call in one of the foremost poets of the age?
The Psalms are poetic, of course, because they were originally written to be sung or chanted. The poetry comes across better in the original Hebrew, as much is lost in any translation.

Sometimes I wonder if people's perception of the King James Bible as poetic owes more to its archaic language than anything else, although of course historically it has been a hugely influential, both as a translation and as a work in its own right.

Slightly off the original point, maybe - but then, when I looked at the linked article, I couldn't actually figure out the original point!

Purple Sparkler
19th-August-2005, 09:47 AM
Where in my original post did I say it was a coherent argument?

I just thought it was interesting in a lots-of-interesting-things-I-didn't-know way.

TiggsTours
19th-August-2005, 10:38 AM
Yeah, yeah, Shakespeare was more than one person, man never landed on the moon, Elvis is still alive, oh and of course, the holocaust never really happened!

What people fail to see is that Shakespeare's work is quite avreage for the time, but it has just time-travelled so well, its highly possible that somebody could have written that number of plays in their lifetime, and in his lifetime, he never actually made that much money out of it. He made his money by marrying well, then not actually living with his wife, giving him plenty of time and money to do what he liked! The conspiracy theory that is more likely is that William Shakespeare could have been a woman. Women at the time should not have been educated, therefore, would not have been taken seriously. It is also more likely that a woman would have married money, and not had to work, so had plenty of time on her hands to write plays.

ducasi
19th-August-2005, 11:51 AM
Where in my original post did I say it was a coherent argument?

I just thought it was interesting in a lots-of-interesting-things-I-didn't-know way.
Yeah, it actually is quite interesting – though I don't think much was new to me. :shrug:

But I shouldn't have been so dismissive. Sorry. :blush: :flower:

Purple Sparkler
19th-August-2005, 12:07 PM
Yeah, it actually is quite interesting – though I don't think much was new to me. :shrug:

But I shouldn't have been so dismissive. Sorry. :blush: :flower:

Tis OK, oh esteemed supplier of 'Lost' on DVD!

ducasi
19th-August-2005, 12:18 PM
Got it OK then?

Clive Long
19th-August-2005, 12:34 PM
<< snip >> The conspiracy theory that is more likely is that William Shakespeare could have been a woman. Women at the time should not have been educated, therefore, would not have been taken seriously. It is also more likely that a woman would have married money, and not had to work, so had plenty of time on her hands to write plays.
Trying to push this thread way off the rails, I saw the E=mc^2 (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/nature/e=mc2.html) (ascii character set :rolleyes: ) proggy on Channel4. I liked the docu-drama style and liked the linkages.

My point isn't about the program, it's style nor its scientific accuracy - it's about the women.

As you get older, you develop an interest in history as you become an invisible part of it - or the as the young say "you're history grandad" (were I that important!) I have read a little about the history and development of scientific ideas - my education in the arts and humanities are almost zero . I knew of Faraday, Davy, Lavoisier, Maxwell, Frisch, Bethe, Hahn, Planck and, of course, Uncle Albert.

I never knew of two key women: Emilie du Chatelet, Lisa Meitner, who contributed key ideas and research related to mechanics and nuclear fission. Why is that?

Interesting article (http://www.scientainment.com/women.html) on recognition of women in science. It is commented that Jocelyn Bell Burnell deserved (but did not receive) a Nobel prize for discovery of pulsars and (similarly) Rosalind Franklin for the structure of DNA (although Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously).

Different food for thought for this thread.

El Salsero Gringo
19th-August-2005, 12:48 PM
I never knew of two key women: Emilie du Chatelet, Lisa Meitner, who contributed key ideas and research related to mechanics and nuclear fission. Why is that?Although you have of course heard of Marie Curie, one of only two people to have won two Nobel prizes in different subjects - (bonus point if you can name the other without looking it up)? And Irene Joliot-Curie, her daughter?


Interesting article (http://www.scientainment.com/women.html) on recognition of women in science. It is commented that Jocelyn Bell Burnell deserved (but did not receive) a Nobel prize for discovery of pulsars and (similarly) Rosalind Franklin for the structure of DNA (although Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously).It's not only women who get passed over. Charles Best missed out on sharing the physiology and medicine prize with Banting and Macleod in 1923 for the discovery of insulin, although his contribution to the work was as great, if not greater than the latter.

ps. Lise Meitner, I think.

Clive Long
19th-August-2005, 12:58 PM
Although you have of course heard of Marie Curie, one of only two people to have won two Nobel prizes in different subjects - (bonus point if you can name the other without looking it up)? And Irene Joliot-Curie, her daughter?

It's not only women who get passed over. Charles Best missed out on sharing the physiology and medicine prize with Banting and Macleod in 1923 for the discovery of insulin, although his contribution to the work was as great, if not greater than the latter.

ps. Lise Meitner, I think.
Good point of the Curies - I did think of them - and Dorothy Hodgkin for X-Ray work on Insulin (?)

I have read a little of Mme. Curie's background in Poland she seems to have had to overcome childhood diversity and a fragmentary initial university education.

Me, I'll continue to work at remembering more than 10 MJ moves.

Oh yeah, Linus Pauling for Chemistry and Peace

CRL

bigdjiver
19th-August-2005, 01:19 PM
...In fact, if I recall correctly, the KJV was just a revised version of an earlier translation of the Bible into English. I'll have to look that up.John Wycliffe in the 14th century.

ducasi
19th-August-2005, 01:21 PM
John Wycliffe in the 14th century.
:yeah: That's the fella!

Lynn
19th-August-2005, 02:15 PM
The Psalms are poetic, of course, because they were originally written to be sung or chanted. The poetry comes across better in the original Hebrew, as much is lost in any translation. And then do you translate the literal or the meaning? If the meaning, then you need to contextualise much of it in a way that is meaningful to the reader/hearer. I've come across some interesting variations in translating the Bible into an African context.

Baruch
19th-August-2005, 08:40 PM
And then do you translate the literal or the meaning? If the meaning, then you need to contextualise much of it in a way that is meaningful to the reader/hearer. I've come across some interesting variations in translating the Bible into an African context.
The most literal translations are very difficult to read. Idioms etc. often just don't translate, so the meaning must be conveyed, rather than the literal word-for-word translation.

The whole point of translating the Bible is to make it easy to understand in people's own language. That calls for a balance between literal accuracy and dynamic equivalence, or translating the overall meaning.

(OK, spot the Theology graduate.... :) )

Lynn
20th-August-2005, 03:02 PM
The whole point of translating the Bible is to make it easy to understand in people's own language. That calls for a balance between literal accuracy and dynamic equivalence, or translating the overall meaning. :yeah: Lots of fascinating issues of contexualisation, I've seen the process in action in West Africa.
(OK, spot the Theology graduate.... :) ) So, ever read Bosch? :whistle:

Baruch
20th-August-2005, 10:30 PM
So, ever read Bosch? :whistle:
Er.... I may have done, but it was quite a while ago. (I graduated in 1996.)

Dreadful Scathe
12th-September-2006, 12:25 PM
The whole point of translating the Bible is to make it easy to understand in people's own language. That calls for a balance between literal accuracy and dynamic equivalence, or translating the overall meaning.

Considering when the bible was written, how long it took and the translations since - I wouldnt hold out much hope of the overall meaning being anywhere near perfect - to take a modern day example - 50 yoeas ago "totally gay" would be a very strange way of saying "completely happy and carefree", 10 years ago it would mean "extremely homosexual" (which also sounds strange :) ) and now it would mean "very stupid"*. Think about that over nearly 2000 years. :eek: "dynamic equivalence" will only work if the person translating is fully versed in every possible idiom and turn of phrase from the time - if that gap is 50 years or more? dubious chance at best :)

And whats worse, some strange people will still take a non-literal translation literally i.e. jehovahs Witness and blood donation...etc..

thats a minority of course, most religious people can adapt to modern life and not be too literal in the teachings of their sacred texts.




*yes - i know TiggsTours hates this but it does get used this way - and more importantly in context, understood this way

Baruch
13th-September-2006, 10:43 PM
"dynamic equivalence" will only work if the person translating is fully versed in every possible idiom and turn of phrase from the time
I don't think anyone could claim an exhaustive knowledge of biblical idioms, and there is plenty of debate over some phrases that may or may not be idiomatic, but there are a great many that are understood by translators. To give just one example, the first part of Genesis 4:1 in literal translation says, "And the man knew Eve his wife." The term "knew" is usually translated these days as a dynamic equivalence, as it means "had sex with". Interestingly, some people translate it using an English idiom, "slept with".