tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26093079.post6234537569713590609..comments2023-09-25T13:41:12.977+01:00Comments on Brave New Words: Picking up Hidden Meanings: Guest PostB.J. Epsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07564748493196230467noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26093079.post-36816513265602185382013-06-08T15:44:04.462+01:002013-06-08T15:44:04.462+01:00Two comments only: I absolutely don't make any...Two comments only: I absolutely don't make any absolute condemnation of anyone! I was simply repeating the biblical view of our alienation from God, since that is what I was "translating". I happen to accept it, but I don't want to condemn or kill anyone. Quite the contrary. The idea of forgiveness representing being freed is incidentally heandshaa solution to the alienation! When the horses are released from the starting gate, they are freed to be themselves. The idea works for me, but obviously not for you. Translation is like that, I guessAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683795063355553507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26093079.post-81860993837803090742013-05-25T02:28:33.372+01:002013-05-25T02:28:33.372+01:00Turning to the universe, as we so often must nowad...Turning to the universe, as we so often must nowadays, the suggestion that the earth is the only bit that has rebelled against god is not only a bit solipsistic, lacking evidence of what might be happening or have happened in alien civilizations; but also raises the questions in what sense you think it has rebelled and against which god. There are a good many examples of people trying to follow one or another deity, with varying results, not all of them inimical to a cheerful and co-operative society. Specifically, for instance, how could the ignorant heathen, of whom there have been a fair number, rebel against your god ? It seems to me that your absolute condemnation is the kind of argument which could easily lead to 'kill them all, God will know his own'. <br /><br />Your response about freeing ourselves from the consciousness of sin overlooks the possible need for some to be forgiven, and does not address the difficulty of 'freeing' others. As for the starting gate, do you mean that we should race away from our sins, each faster than the other (and who is the jockey ?), or what ? That 'explanation' hinders rather than helps, and rather makes my point about looking at the word actually chosen in the original – so with 'amen', one might perhaps more usefully look at how Jesus was recorded as using it (cf. the link you quote) – although in Matthew, the literal translation of the Greek is 'debts', not Tyndale's 'trespasses'; but of course, if the original Aramaic was an idiom, Tyndale may be more 'correct'. Specifically I must note that 'we have freed our offenders' means to me that we have freed those people whom we forced to go around offending others, that they may do other things: 'offending' becomes trivial, and grammatically the phrase does not do what you want it to do. <br /><br />David Bellos, in 'Is that a fish in your ear?', makes the excellent point: "Give a hundred competent translators a page to translate and the chances of any two versions being identical is close to zero." For some Catullus I prefer Adam Raphaël, for others James Michie; sometimes I feel like reading Chapman's Homer, sometimes Graves's; and my dim recollections of Greek and Latin would not begin to allow me to do either job myself . I do not decry your goodwill in offering this exegesis: but I do question the procedure and the outcome ….<br />In the end it always come back to Beckett: Try again. Fail again. But fail better. Good luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26093079.post-56467972872375437392013-05-25T02:25:17.612+01:002013-05-25T02:25:17.612+01:00Thank you for a reply probably more courteous than...Thank you for a reply probably more courteous than I deserved. As even less of a student of Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew than yourself, I nevertheless have trouble with your starting point, that Aramaic, unlike English, has a depth of resonance thanks to its etymology. On the English front, you will no doubt recall that a good many poets have felt a need for an understanding of etymology: while admittedly I cannot adduce Shakespeare, Robert Graves may serve as an example (lacking half my library, I cannot give references: though I am pretty sure that some of the Oxford Lectures on Poetry was only among the later expressions of his view on this point). <br /><br />Turning to the particular sources for your work, I was under the impression that the words of Jesus come to us in koiné Greek, implying that any Aramaic original must be a back translation, like the Syriac gospels (a few Aramaic transliterations apparently survive into the Gospels, 'talitha kum', for example, but not in this instance; and of course there is no single Greek 'original' text). A further point here is the value to be place on the etymology. While Aramaic verbs have, for instance a G-form and a more intensive D-form ('killed' giving rise to 'slew' for instance), so that the importance of etymology here is obvious, can it necessarily be argued that all prior forms have equal status with the word under consideration (for, if so, why not use those) ? The point is that we may wish to expand our understanding of the resonance of words: but that is not the same thing as saying that one word is as good as another, still less that another word is better than the word we (or in this case, someone else) first thought of.<br /><br />Then of course there is the possibility (even without following e.g. Hamp, Knowles or Blizzard) that Jesus was speaking in Hebrew, not Aramaic, which could lead to a somewhat different etymology, even though they are closely cognate languages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26093079.post-25653034069618940242013-05-24T11:35:44.364+01:002013-05-24T11:35:44.364+01:00Many thanks for your comments, old-gobbo. The answ...Many thanks for your comments, old-gobbo. The answer to all your points really is that I was trying to include the depths of meaning present in the original Aramaic and that I felt had been reduced in the version we currently use. The idea of will, delight and desire are all present in the Aramaic: selecting only the word will; gives what I feel (and there is a lot of "feel" in translation) to be a too one-dimensional view of God, though "will" is certainly not wrong. There is reference else where to God's delight and desire being involved in his will. Yes, I do think the earth has a special dispensation of some kind, in that it is the part of the universe that has rebelled against God and is in need of restoration. <br />I can see what you mean about "bread for our necessities": maybe that's not the best phrase. "Physical needs" may be better, though no-one else has had problems with it, as far as I know. Which doesn't make it right, of course.<br />Forgiveness is very much bound up with freedom, because it stems from the word for releasing horses at a starting gate. Forgiveness is a key issue, and I wanted to stress the fact that it frees us. The Aramaic also contains ideas of being tied up in what we've done in the past, and being feed by forgiveness from what Leonard Cohen called being "torn by what we've done and can't undo".<br />Amen is a very complex word, which is why we have used the original (or a transliteration) instead of translating it. One way it was used was to indicate trust when signing a contract, and that's why I used "Sealed in faithfulness". But my version may not be the best. IN fact I'm sure it isn't. There isa brief discussion on Amen at http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-exactly-does-amen-mean<br />I'm sure my translations says a lot about me. Most translations do!<br />All the best<br />TimAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683795063355553507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26093079.post-36842208197498408722013-05-23T13:38:37.504+01:002013-05-23T13:38:37.504+01:00A selection of comments:
1. let your desire and de...A selection of comments:<br />1. let your desire and delight be, as in the universe, also upon earth.<br /><br />It would (might) be useful if you explained what led you to depart from the standard instruction / hope about God's 'will' being done to God's 'desire' – the two can be distinguished in a number of contexts; and on the other hand whether you had any reason other than personal whim for including delight.<br /><br />For the second part, 'as in the universe' surely includes the earth, unless you consider that the earth has a special dispensation of some kind ?<br /><br />3. 'bread for our necessities' seems plain odd. Where 'our daily bread' is a perfectly understandable requirement, bread covering sustenance in general, this formulation conjures up images of trying to write with a bread stick, plastering a piece of finest supermarket sliced on a wound or sawing through one's chains with a bread roll; or idly speculating on unconsidered uses for a croissant<br /><br />4. What do you see as the difference between 'forgive' us our offences and 'free us from our offences', particularly since it leads to a rather strained ( tho' not impossible ) use of 'free' when it comes to those who have trespassed against us ?<br /><br />5. Where 'amen' means either 'the end' or 'be it so!' (OED), your novel & pietistic formula says rather more about you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com