I personally agree with your comments, but there will always be some people who may not feel the same….

A modern liturgical translation would be a very interesting indeed.

It would be good to get Obama, or his speechwriter, to work on improving the style of Bible translations. But then both of them will be busy with other things probably for the next eight years!

Perhaps a few of us would prefer that they spent their time working on Bible translations for the next four to eight years rather than on what they will be doing!

However, I would also say that the KJV is more transparent to the original Hebrew cadences.

I would love to see you write more on the similarities or otherwise on speaking the original Hebrew vs. the KJV and/or other English translations. If that’s not an interest, do you know of resources along those lines?

Finally, we must give credit to the sermon style of the Black Church (which in Obama’s case, largely means that of Jeremiah Wright’s church.)

Indeed. Wayne began to touch on that influence in his comments on BBB.

What is the makeup of this sort of cadence? Can we articulate it? Might there be a way to define it or describe it?

It’s a fair question, David. I haven’t spent much time “under the hood” with the KJV examining things like meter and rhythm, and I suspect that many others have already done so. In the link thread on Better Bibles, Wayne talks about the speaking traditions of the African-American church.

Dissecting and connecting the two is probably a project over my head – this post was more about a listener’s response to oratory and a regret that our Bible traditions are more reader oriented than listener oriented.

There are many fine works to develop cadence from — not only the KJV. Churchill is famous for developing his unique style from reading Gibbon. Others have developed the spoken style from Shakespeare or the other great poets.

Finally, we must give credit to the sermon style of the Black Church (which in Obama’s case, largely means that of Jeremiah Wright’s church.)

[...] translation theorist Willis Barnstone speaks of writerly translations that involve an active participation with the source text.

Yes! Give me blood, sweat and tears on my translation where the translator has grappled like Jacob with the words of God. Clinical concordance cannot compete with the cadence of raw language.

Thank you too for the link to that past discussion. You’ve previously inspired me to get a copy of the Lattimore NT – now you’ve urged the Barnstone!

It would be good to get Obama, or his speechwriter, to work on improving the style of Bible translations.

I would be very curious to know more about the speechwriting process for Obama – whether those rhythms and cadences are planned, or whether he is applying “interpretation” to the words as he speaks.

It is an interesting fact that long flowing periods such as are found in much of biblical oratory in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are systematically revised in DE translations to conform to current canons of literary English style. Said style favors short, staccato-like sentences and a minimum of repetition.

Yes, they are very different styles indeed. I speculated in a previous post on how media like radio and television have impacted our English styles, with their emphasis on soundbites to make an impression in as little time as possible.

These skills need to be practiced and learned irrespective of the translation read, such that the read passage is spoken as an organic living body, not deciphered line by line disconnectedly.

Agreed. When laypeople lead the common readings at church, it is easily discernible whether the reader has looked at the text beforehand to get a sense of it or if they are simply reading, line by line.

My tongue used to crawl into my belly when speaking in front of people, but I was fortunate to have a job where presentations were frequent and necessary, and I learned to overcome that.