which was published in 2009. Only part of it is available online. My problem is that I haven't read the original so I can't comment save to say that I will do so. When I have done so I will return to this post and make further comments. For now, I can say that while Kermode has much to say about Barnstone's translation theory ("the New Testament as we have it is a corrupt version of a lost original"), he has little to say about the translations of Thomas, Mary and Judas and the implications of their inclusion in the book. To be continued...
Friday, July 09, 2010
Willis Barnstone's The Restored New Testament reviewed by Frank Kermode
The July 15th issue of the NY Review of Books has a review by Frank Kermode of Willis Barnstone's The Restored New Testament: A New Translation with Commentary, Including the Gnostic Gospels Thomas, Mary, and Judas which was published in 2009. Only part of it is available online. My problem is that I haven't read the original so I can't comment save to say that I will do so. When I have done so I will return to this post and make further comments. For now, I can say that while Kermode has much to say about Barnstone's translation theory ("the New Testament as we have it is a corrupt version of a lost original"), he has little to say about the translations of Thomas, Mary and Judas and the implications of their inclusion in the book. To be continued...
which was published in 2009. Only part of it is available online. My problem is that I haven't read the original so I can't comment save to say that I will do so. When I have done so I will return to this post and make further comments. For now, I can say that while Kermode has much to say about Barnstone's translation theory ("the New Testament as we have it is a corrupt version of a lost original"), he has little to say about the translations of Thomas, Mary and Judas and the implications of their inclusion in the book. To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment