Re: Greek New Testament is translatiion from Aramaic?

On Dec 2, 8:30 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:57:30 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:5991c299-401f-4e17-9498-8fc35e53799c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:





On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:50:38 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:40542550-857e-4097-a7b9-d5a2dba2df1c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:
[...]
C. S. Lewis points out that it was very clever of God to have the
Bible written in languages that relied on parallelism and foot-
counting for their poetry, rather than rhyme and meter, so that it
could be translated into any language without the formal constraints
that make verse translation of European poetry so difficult.
This is in an essay called "The Literary Impact of the Authorized
Version." He contended that it has had _no_ literary impact, because
it is on the one hand so familiar, and on the other hand so
stylistically marked, that it wasn't possible to assimilate one's
writing to it unnoticed: it was always being either quoted or alluded
to, never imitated (whether consciously or not, the way other writers
can have an impact on the writing of their generation and after, just
by seeping into the literary worldview).
He's wrong. It's clearly one of the models for a style
sometimes used in certain types of fantasy, usually for
passages from Aunciente Bokes or bits of traditional
storytelling.
I think he is not wrong, as your (anachronistic) example
demonstrates: KJV diction is used there specifically to
lend a mystic/archaic/sacral air to the passages.

He is wrong if he says that it is never imitated: it is.

Different sense of "imitate," I suppose. Read his essay.

And not just for isolated bits: see some of Dunsany's
stories.

I tried to, a couple of times.

That "type of fantasy" did not yet exist in Lewis's time
-- it emerged after Tolkien's immense popularity began in
the late 1960s,

That's when it emerged as a recognized genre.

Thus Lewis did not know about it and, happily, did not foresee it.

and his would-be imitators were incompetent to a man or
woman;

No, though many were at best mediocre.

the masters of the genre such as Tolkien, Lewis,

I'm happy to give you Tolkien, but for all that the Narnia
stories are classics, I'm not at all sure that I'd include
Lewis among the masters; the heavy-handed religiosity --
very noticeable even when I was a kid -- gets in the way.

You will not, however, find KJV pastiche anywhere.

Considering that I was introduced to Lewis in a religious context, I
didn't find it "getting in the way." How unfortunate that you're
unable to enjoy *The Screwtape Letters*!

Doubtless you also refused to enjoy Madeleine L'Engle, also. I went to
her funeral on Wednesday. My favorite of hers? *The Young Unicorns*.
Not least, perhaps, because she caused a New York Public Library fine
to be assessed against me by keeping beyond its due date a book on the
subways that I'd gotten out for her that contributed to the plot.

and their ilk admired -- MacDonald, Morris, Grahame, and a
number of others whose names do not remain familiar today
[see e.g. Rateliff, History of the Hobbit] --

No need: I've *read* many of them. (And I'll take 'The
Golden Key' over anything by Lewis.) Morris's language
isn't specifically Biblical, but it is deliberately archaic:
same confection, different flavor.

Good! Then you agree with Lewis.

did no such thing. _Good_ writers do not descend to
pastiche.

Descend? What an odd point of view.

You consider pastiche _elevated_?
.

Quantcast