Notable quotes, excerpts, and profound lines.

[beppe]

I was again contemplating my post about he and she. It is even messier than that. So I propse a key of this issue. Who cares about gender in this context. It is about love. That's all. It seems again like an other Beattle's theme.

Astra! It is not just you, move it along.

[astra]

Originally Posted by beppe

Do like evrybody else, grow your own

Ta!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ea

Interesting. But I wondered if you happen to have a translation that's written more for accuracy that poetry (as far as I understand, the King James version is not) - ...

I can't speak of the Danish versions, but here are a few various English translations of Solomon 2:16:

The King James Version I quoted in the original post was first published in 1611. The older Geneva Bible (1599) reads virtually the same as the King James:
.....I am my welbeloueds, and my welbeloued is mine, who feedeth among the lilies.

Most modern Christian versions have a different take on that verse:

A fairly recent Catholic translation, New Jerusalem Bible (1985), reads:
.....My love is mine and I am his. He pastures his flock among the lilies.

The New Revised Standard version (1989)
.....My beloved is mine and I am his; he pastures his flock among the lilies.

When making their new translation in 1985 (The TaNaKh), the Jewish Publication Society chose to go with the older rendering:
.....My beloved is mine And I am his Who browses among the lilies.

And finally, the New King James Version (1982) reads:
.....My beloved is mine, and I am his. He feeds his flock among the lilies.

Note that the phrase "his flock" is in parenthesis. The New King James version follows in the tradition of the original King James version. Whenever you see a word or phrase in parenthesis in either version, it indicates that word or phrase is not in the original, but has been added by the translators, presumably for clarity.

Originally Posted by Ea

...because I couldn't resist checking a Danish version (a 1931 translation), which gives the word as: 'vogter' - which translates to watcher, keeper, guardian, shepherd, herdsman, custodian - and as far as I read it, the most accurate translation is 'watcher'.

The occupation of her lover seems to me to be irrelevant, unless the remainder of the verse is referring to his flock, and the words "his flock" don't appear to be in the original. I'm sure there are one or two shepherds out there somewhere who enjoy performing cunnilingus as well as the rest of us!

Not that I'm saying that's the undisputed truth concerning the meaning of that verse. All I'm saying it that it has had me wondering for quite a while. It is, after all, a very erotic collection of poetry.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by beppe

...In the original Sappho (a she) refers to her Lesbia (an other she) and uses the she in her poem

In the Catullo original, that is the translation in Latin of Sappho's poem, with the same Sapphic stanza structure, Catullo (a he) refers to his Lesbia (a different she than Sappho's Lesbia) and uses the she in his poem...

After I posted that, it occurred to me what he was going for in his translation, and so I edited my original post—not fast enough to prevent you from quoting me on that, however!

No matter which gender pronouns are used, it's a lovely poem! Thanks for posting it!

Originally Posted by beppe

I was again contemplating my post about he and she. It is even messier than that. So I propse a key of this issue. Who cares about gender in this context. It is about love. That's all. It seems again like an other Beattle's theme...

[Ea]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

....

The occupation of her lover seems to me to be irrelevant, unless the remainder of the verse is referring to his flock, and the words "his flock" don't appear to be in the original. I'm sure there are one or two shepherds out there somewhere who enjoy performing cunnilingus as well as the rest of us!

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Not that I'm saying that's the undisputed truth concerning the meaning of that verse. All I'm saying it that it has had me wondering for quite a while. It is, after all, a very erotic collection of poetry.

Thanks for the examples I don't think my version is any more accurate, but with all these old translations it's always worth investigating. Given the nature of the poem, your suggestion is a good guess.

[WT Sharpe]

And I thought it was Ackerman's footnote listed in the credits that would get all the comments!

[Ea]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

And I thought it was Ackerman's footnote listed in the credits that would get all the comments!

I remember reading something once about how when a deal was sealed between two men, they'd hold each others testicles (I think this was in the Middle eastern region). But the thing about the bible being a replacement - considered more decourous - was new to me.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

After I posted that, it occurred to me what he was going for in his translation, and so I edited my original post—not fast enough to prevent you from quoting me on that, however!

No matter which gender pronouns are used, it's a lovely poem! Thanks for posting it!

I am sorry Tom. And you are so kind, and gentlemanly with me!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ea

I remember reading something once about how when a deal was sealed between two men, they'd hold each others testicles (I think this was in the Middle eastern region). But the thing about the bible being a replacement - considered more decourous - was new to me.

I had never heard that either, and I doubt it's true. The Random House note on origins of "testify" and "testicle" notes that, "There is no evidence anywhere that a Roman or a Greek had to put his hand on his testicles in order to validate his testimony when swearing in court," although they go on to state that, "The Latin word testis originally meant 'witness'. It comes from the Indo-European roots *tre- meaning 'three' and *sta- meaning 'stand'. A witness was 'a third person standing by'. From that came the verb testificare 'to bear witness', which evolved into Middle English testify in the fourteenth century," and "Where it gets confusing is that testis also—although not originally—meant testicle in Latin."

The Bible writers, who of course had no Latin background, speak of swearing an oath by placing a hand under the thigh. This isn't quite the same as placing it on the genitals, but close, as a hand under the thigh is usually considered more than simply a friendly greeting. Whether it was a euphemism for the actual act of placing a hand on someone's testicles I can't say. Most likely, there is a connection, but it's unclear just how close that connection is.

Genesis 24:2-4, New International Version (1984):
.....He said to the chief servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac."

Since the hand was placed under the thigh of the one being sworn to, it hardly seems to follow that the one testifying is, in effect, saying, "You can cut off my balls if I’m lying," to quote Ms. Ackerman's colorful phrase; at least not in the instances to which the Bible refers.

[WT Sharpe]

It's interesting to speculate how the Song of Songs ever came to be considered holy scripture by the early Hebrews in the first place. In The Teaching Company's Old Testament course, Professor Amy-Jill Levine states that, "Its literary parallels are less Proverbs and Ecclesiastes than Egyptian love poetry."

[WT Sharpe]

.....Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and if so, does He have any other effect on the universe? And who created Him?
.....Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe the universe to ask why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, said, "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!
.....If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, it just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.
..........— Stephen Hawking (1942.-.), British theoretical physicist, author, formerly Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for thirty years. A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking with Leonard Mlodinow (2005), Chapter 12: Conclusion.

[astra]

Interesting.
I am planning to read A Briefer History of Time for quite some time now, but cannot summon enough courage.

[WT Sharpe]

Both it and it's predecessor, A Brief History of Time, are surprisingly accessible.

[astra]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Both it and it's predecessor, A Brief History of Time, are surprisingly accessible.

I have the er version. Only too lazy to read something that requires brains.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

.....Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and if so, does He have any other effect on the universe? And who created Him?
.....Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe the universe to ask why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, said, "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!
.....If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, it just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.
..........— Stephen Hawking (1942.-.), British theoretical physicist, author, formerly Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for thirty years. A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking with Leonard Mlodinow (2005), Chapter 12: Conclusion.

Very nice quote!

The "And who created him" part is one that puzzles me. Not the question in itself, but the fact that nobody seems to care much about it. Of course, if you're an atheist like me, you don't think that question is needed. But if you believe in any kind of creator, it seems to me that this is the question that should hang in blinking neon in front of you every waking minute: if there is a creator, who the hell created it? And who created the creator's creator? And do I want to meet any of those entities?