The Art of Bible Translation

Prof. Alter spends the first 6 pages giving his credentials, which invariably is a sign of a self-important windbag. (As my friends would say “takes one to know one.”) Not that Alter doesn’t have excellent scholarly credentials with more than 2 dozen books to his credit and competence in both ancient and modern Hebrew. But he seems to think that other translations “don’t see the artistry (p61), “bleach the biblical dialogue of its vivid color (108), give in to “the impulse to spell out everything…at the cost of both rhythm and stylistic decorum” (91), engage in “egregious” modernizing (91), ignore word play (76), “manhandle the Hebrew (120) among other “woeful inadequacies of 20th century English translations” (2) like the esteemed New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, and the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version. His favorite: The 1611 King James Version—widely regarded by scholars worldwide as the least authoritative and accurate version. In short, he doesn't care for the newfangled, easier to read, authoritative translations which conflict with his.All that aside, let’s consider several significant problems with this book. (1) He seems to get confused when he uses the phrase “biblical prose” (p.4) as to whether he’s referring to KJV or what he sometimes calls “the original Hebrew.” E.g, “in biblical narrative there is only one word for ‘light.’” But which bible—the “Hebrew” or the KJV? (2) Nowhere does he even bother to identify what he considers “the original Hebrew.” This is an egregious academic lapse. Maybe it’s obvious to him but the point of being a biblical scholar is to say what your source is. (3) On a point of simple readability, he lets his paragraphs blather on far beyond what even a scholar wants to endure — paragraphs running 60- and 70-lines (2-3 pages-worth) are commonplace. In short, he has no concept of where to break up a graf into manageable units. (4) He often presents three or four versions of the same verse in one long graf instead of giving the reader an eye-break by setting each version on its own line.But the most serious problem, in my admittedly non-scholarly view, is (5): he doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there is no “original Hebrew,” that is, an “autograph” manuscript. In other words, we only have handwritten copies of these books And, as Bart Ehrman points out, in reality, we only have copies of copies of copies. In short, there is no “original Hebrew” ('autograph') to translate from. “We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them . . . in thousands of ways. (Ehrman, in "Misquoting Jesus"). We do have Dead Sea Scrolls>—fragments dating from 150 BCE—and other codex fragments in Greek, Syriac and Latin dating from 300 BCE. Then there’s the Masoretic text — often referred to as the “original Hebrew Bible text” and considered by many experts as being perhaps the most authoritative Hebrew text. But these docs range from 100 CE to 1000 CE—not exactly the trustworthy actual words and stories of any 600-1000 BCE prophets—several hundred to two thousand years earlier.Now, there are arguments somewhat mitigating the absence of an “autograph text.” For example, there is the idea that original texts can be “recovered” across multiple reliable manuscripts (such as Qur’anic scholars were said to have done 20 years after Muhammad’s death, see Uthman’s Codex). There is also the strategy of using attributions from other sources that refer to a particular text that has been lost. And there is the argument from oral tradition which says that information passed down orally from generation to generation is actually “the original.” That is, just because something has not been written on a parchment or papyrus, a stele or the ribs of palm leaves does not mean it doesn’t exist. Or, as one religion professor insists: “Textual scholars can determine, with a relative degree of certainty, which of these readings were original and which were not.”The bottom line here is that if you’re going to rely on a document only set in fixed form 500 to 2,000 years after the events, maybe you shouldn’t be quibbling about fine points of parataxis, word play, dialogue and “rhythm.” Absent some evidence that he’s managed to latch onto original biblical writings from 1000 to 6th century BCE (the time of the Babylonian Captivity) the best that can be said is that Prof. Alter does a scholarly job of deciphering and translating texts from questionable copies of copies of translations.My general impression is that, despite the impressive Princeton imprimatur, this is essentially a self-publishing vanity project that sidestepped editing, copyediting and scholarly review due to the author’s reputation.Verdict: read only if you enjoy fine points of ancient Hebrew diction, dialogue and style but you don't care what actual source is being translated and don't mind wading through 2-3-page paragraphs.

There have been many fine modern scholars of Bible translations. Robert alter retains a special place for not just for the depth of his studies but also the length of it – he is 84 years old and has been a scholar and translator of the Hebrew bible for decades. He is also a literary scholar, and it is through that aspect of his work that he came to realise and be horrified by popular and contemporary translations of the Bible. One of the seemingly innumerable examples he has pulled towards his critical view, is the infusion of Cartesian dualistic philosophy into the Bible. That is the translation of the word ‘nefesh’ into ‘soul’, an immaterial part of the human body, a totally vague, almost unprovable, concept, when in Hebrew, the word ‘nefesh’ has nothing to do with such a spiritual form. In Hebrew, it means ‘breath, life, blood, or even person’; but never a ‘soul’.In this, his latest book, he combines a lot of what he had said in two of his previous books, ‘The Art of Biblical Poetry’ and ‘The Art of Biblical Narrative’ to explain and show where Bible translators have gone astray. The Hebrew language, especially that used in the Bible has poetry and narrative. Alter shows how narrative verses differ from verses of dialogue. When he read the Hebrew Bible, he saw all ‘sorts of things going on…many having to do with its literary shaping, that had not been discussed in the conventional commentaries’. This is what he took up in this book.There is, he says, ‘a double problem: not only do the modern translators lack a clear sense of what happens stylistically in the Bible, but also their notion of English style, its decorums and its expressive possibilities, tends to be rather shaky’.Alter grapples not just with the issue of felicity ‘but also decisions that obscure or even distort what is conveyed in the Hebrew text’. He thinks that all this stems from the ‘misguided impulse to explain everything for the English reader in purportedly crystal-clear terms’. In this book, Alter examines the use of syntax in Hebrew and in the English translations; he studies word choice, rhythm, sound play and word play, and the language of dialogue. In short, what he is really saying, is that if you are not read Dostoevsky’s ‘Crime and Punishment’ in Russian, but an English translation of it, you are reading a different book.

The author's English language versions of Biblical texts are the ultimate in contemporary translations; thus, his insights shared in this entertaining little book are of tremendous value to readers. This title compliments the earlier titles on Biblical prose and Biblical poetry, all must reads.

This is the second book I’ve read about the Hebrew translation of the Bible. It’s well written with fascinating information. As a Catholic, I am interested in how the Bible has been translated into English and what choices were made by the translators.

Fascinating glimpse into the problems of translation and especially the challenges of capturing the lyricism and poetry of the original texts.

I have always wanted to read a translation of the Old Testament that I feel confident is faithful to the Hebrew version. (I think known as the "Masoretic Text". The history of that text can be found in many places online.)The author seems strict about being faithful and in this book explains some of his philosophy of translation. As a layman I am very pleased to have his translations and explanations and I feel confident in the learning I am now getting from reading the Bible.

I am a Robert Alter fan. His Art of Biblical Poetry is worth the price for the chapter on Job alone. This book adds some new examples on translation issues not found in his other books. Whether or not you agree with him, his examples are interesting, you'll learn more about Biblical Hebrew, and you'll be more knowledgeable when you compare different Bible translations.

The author is very careful about proper translation.

There have been many fine modern scholars of Bible translations. Robert alter retains a special place for not just for the depth of his studies but also the length of it – he is 84 years old and has been a scholar and translator of the Hebrew bible for decades. He is also a literary scholar, and it is through that aspect of his work that he came to realise and be horrified by popular and contemporary translations of the Bible. One of the seemingly innumerable examples he has pulled towards his critical view, is the infusion of Cartesian dualistic philosophy into the Bible. That is the translation of the word ‘nefesh’ into ‘soul’, an immaterial part of the human body, a totally vague, almost unprovable, concept, when in Hebrew, the word ‘nefesh’ has nothing to do with such a spiritual form. In Hebrew, it means ‘breath, life, blood, or even person’; but never a ‘soul’.In this, his latest book, he combines a lot of what he had said in two of his previous books, ‘The Art of Biblical Poetry’ and ‘The Art of Biblical Narrative’ to explain and show where Bible translators have gone astray. The Hebrew language, especially that used in the Bible has poetry and narrative. Alter shows how narrative verses differ from verses of dialogue. When he read the Hebrew Bible, he saw all ‘sorts of things going on…many having to do with its literary shaping, that had not been discussed in the conventional commentaries’. This is what he took up in this book.There is, he says, ‘a double problem: not only do the modern translators lack a clear sense of what happens stylistically in the Bible, but also their notion of English style, its decorums and its expressive possibilities, tends to be rather shaky’.Alter grapples not just with the issue of felicity ‘but also decisions that obscure or even distort what is conveyed in the Hebrew text’. He thinks that all this stems from the ‘misguided impulse to explain everything for the English reader in purportedly crystal-clear terms’. In this book, Alter examines the use of syntax in Hebrew and in the English translations; he studies word choice, rhythm, sound play and word play, and the language of dialogue. In short, what he is really saying, is that if you are not read Dostoevsky’s ‘Crime and Punishment’ in Russian, but an English translation of it, you are reading a different book.

As expected

This book brings to light that the English translations of the Old Testament do not contain all the literary devices used by the Hebrew writers. Much of the literary value of the Hebrew is vacant in the English.For example, the Hebrew Bible uses “Parataxis” abundantly (parataxis is the stringing together of multiple clauses using the word “and”). English translations replace “and” with “because”, or “due to the fact”, thus changing the literary flow of the Hebrew into “Westernized” logical arguments and subordinate clauses.Hebrew versions use “fronting” (fronting is the rearranging of the syntax of a language for literary effect). Many English versions eliminate fronting for correct grammatical English structure. For example, in Genesis 42:36 the ESV reads: “You have bereaved me of my children”. But the Hebrew version fronts the object of the verb for dramatic effect: “Me you have bereaved” (Robert Alter’s version).Other types of literary transgressions that most English versions commit are:1. Introducing “explanatory words or phrases” (page 35), instead of allowing the Hebrew text to dramatically speak for itself.2. Ignoring the poetic structure and metre of the Hebrew, for example a “chiastic pattern” (page 35), which is A:B::B’ :A’.3. Missing the “intertwining of the point of view of the narrator and of the character” (page 40).4. Overlooking the depth of intense vividness created by using “cognates” to display powerful imagery. For example, Robert Alter renders a phrase in Exodus 19:9 as “the utmost cloud”, whereas the NIV text reads: “dense cloud”5. Disposing of “sound play and word play” (page 71). In the creation scene the Hebrews reads: “tohu-wavohu”, and the English often reads: “formless and void” (Genesis 1:2). Alter maintains the sound and word play by translating the Hebrew as “welter and waste”.6. Neglecting to maintain the rhythm, and word choice of the Hebrew, and instead, “converting the sound of poetry into the amble of expository prose” (page 93). For example, check out the Hebrew rhythm (mah BEtsa’bd aMI ) for a part of Psalm 30:9, and compare it to Alter’s English translation (“What profit in my blood?”) and the ESVs (“What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the pit?”).Other literary devices covered and used in the Hebrew, but to varying degrees botched or overlooked in the English, are as follows: alliteration, metonyms, synonyms, homonyms, voice, style, tense, dialogue, narrative, brevity, and antonyms.Roberts book, “The Art of Bible Translation” quite convincingly shows that the literary value in an artistic sense is watered down in all the English translations.I so want to read his The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary.

Siempre aprende uno muchísimo leyendo a Alter.