Apparently, as mentioned by the missionary speaker, our bishop is particularly fond of the Ruth and Naomi narrative. I was absorbed by my reading until the speaker read Ruth 3:4-8:
And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. And she said unto her, All that thou sayest unto me I will do. And she went down unto the floor, and did according to all that her mother in law bade her. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down. And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid and turned himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet.
As mentioned by the editors of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd edition), "In Hebrew, feet can be a euphemism for genitals, thus giving a sexual overtone to Naomi's instructions and Ruth's subsequent actions." Unfortunately, as I looked around, I was the only individual who found this funny. Come on people, a missionary was talking about "feet" in Sacrament Meeting and it is the bishop's favorite story! I haven't heard anything that funny since a recent convert confessed to "smoking doobies" right before an appointment with the missionaries.
4 comments:
What is the NRSV? (so I can start bringing it with me to church)
I think it's the New Revised Standard Version (which is a revision of KJV) of the Bible which is basically a contemporarized (sic) version of the revised version--cadence variance, tense changes, etc. (I'm probably way off base but it's something like that)
I'm at work so I don't have access to my materials. If you have any additional questions, let me know and I'll try to find the answer at home.
Chad is right about the acronym. However, it is not a revision of the KJV. There is a newer translation of the KJV with the appropriately given acronym of NKJV which could be considered a revision of the KJV. The NIV (New International Version), NRSV, and NKJV, along with several others are modern translations based on advancements in scholarship over the last 400 years since the KJV was translated. Not only has the text been updated in its usage of language, but passages take on a significantly new meaning. One example that I remember is the passage in John 20:17 where Jesus tells Mary (in the KJV) "Touch me not". The NRSV renders it "Do not hold me" (which agrees with the JST) whereas the NIV translates it to "Stop holding on to me." Some discussions in Sunday school have inferred, based on the KJV, that human contact would somehow defile Jesus before he ascends unto the Father. With the other variant readings, this particular doctrinal interpolation is not necessary and opens up the possibility of other interpretations, i.e. perhaps Jesus likes to be prompt for his appointments.
I'd recommend looking up the NIV (New International Version), NRSV, and KJV on Wikipedia for an overview. There are also several books on the collocation and translation of the biblical cannon (for example, see my review here) for a book I would not recommend. There is another book that I'd recommend. Although I can't remember the title right now.
In an LDS context, contemporary usage would certainly indicate that the KJV is the "official" Bible translation. This is most likely due to the influence that J. Reuben Clark exerted on Harold B. Lee with his book Why the King James Bible. Unfortunately, J. Reuben Clark was not a classicist or other relevant scholar (although he had a brilliant legal mind) so much of his argumentation is incomplete. Joseph Smith said that the German Bible (most likely the Lutheran translation) was the most correct of any translation. I have two relevant pdf articles that you might like. Send me an email if you want copies.
Who are papichulito and shad? I'm just wondering if the family grew or if there were some name changes to protect the innocent.
Post a Comment