“Reading the Bible in translation is like kissing your new bride through a veil.”
- חיים נחמן ביאליק (Haim Nachman Bialik, 9 January 1873 – 4 July 1934)
Bialik ביאליק – Reading the Bible in Hebrew
25 Wednesday Nov 2009
Posted in Hebrew Bible, Translation
Reading the Bible in translation is romantic? Mildly erotic?
:)
Oh – you think so, too! I thought I was the only one.
What ‘the Bible’ is referred to. The Septuagint are not translation as such and neither are the Targumim. The Peshitta is translation but as much shaped by Septuagint as Hebrew ( in OT) and likewise for the Vulgate. Indeed one could say that ‘the Bible’ is a multiplicity of texts masquerading as translations when of course there is no original text and even the Hebrew versions (Masoretic, Samaritan and Qumran) could also be regarded as translations.
It soon gets complicated, doesn’t it? However, while the Greek versions are not translations of MT, they are translations of some Hebrew text that has some close and fundamental relationship with MT.
(I’d actually go further. For many books of the Hebrew Bible, all the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts go back to a single Hebrew text. However, the text was unfixed, still open to revision, at the time it was first translated into Greek, which produced the diversity in the witnesses. And this process of revision involved the intent to rewrite rather than the intent to merely translate, however difficult it is to separate the two in practice.)
In any case, reading the MT still beats, hands-down, reading an English translation, which is what Bialik was getting at.
Michael,
Do you appreciate the English Bible translations, from the Douai-Reims (R. Catholic), of course the earlier Geneva and Tyndale, Bishops Bible, the King James Version; and finally the RV, English (American 1901 ASV)? And even now our more modern one’s…RSV, NASB, ESV, to the NLT? Not to forget the NRSV, used by both Protestant and R. Catholic. ( I know I left out some) My point is the English translation history.
Fr. R.
And for you Dunedin School people, do you read and appreciate Eusebius and his work, The History of the Church?
Tyrone, reading any of the Hebrew versions (MT, Sam, Qumran) is probably better than reading only an English translation, as is reading the Greek versions too. Indeed I would argue now that contemporary translations should no longer pander to the fiction that there is a single biblical text but instead take the Hexapla as a model. So if people want to read an English (say) Bible they would have before them in parallel MT, Greek, Sam, Qumran, and – why not? – Targumim in English. And given how Jerome transformed texts such as Judith and Esther, lets add the Vulgate to that mix too. That way they get to explore the biblical text in as full a way as possible.
Fr R, I have a Douai-Reims and a King James Bible (with ‘Apocrypha’) as well as a number of other English translations, including NRSV and Jewish ones too. And I have three different English translations of the Qur’an too.
In that the original Hebrew texts of ‘the Old Testament’ do not exist, then I think all ancient texts, including the MT, should be regarded as forms of translation and valued. Likewise translations into one’s own language should likewise be valued. There is no original text and so all versions anceint, modern and in-between are part of the meta-text, each part having its own value, not necessarily the same or equal. Equality is a false value to apply to versions of the text.
I will qualify the above by saying that I am speaking as both a Catholic Gentile and a scholar. For Judaism the MT is the biblical text in a way for which there is no equivalence in Christianity. The MT has never been canonical for Christianity, although, through Jerome, it did impact the Western Bible, and post-Reformation, helps shape Protestant Bibles. But there is no single normative Christian biblical canon or text for either Old or New Testaments and never has been. And while I am not a New Test scholar, I understand that there is textual variety for NT texts just as there is a variety of NT canons, although maybe not to the same extent as the OT. In which case I would argue that Hexapla approach apply to NT texts as much as to OT texts. And naturally the Hexapla approach would acknowledge the canonical plurality of the Christain meta-Bible as much as the textual plurality too.
Yeh, bro.
Michael,
I have been in the seat of the scholar myself, but I have learned that one must stay true always with the Church Catholic, and this includes the Judeo truth and history. For myself I would follow the revelation of Israel of Law, Prophets and Writings…the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebracica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983). And of course, I would see, when needed, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, etc. But as an Anglican, and somewhat Low Church, I would read the Apocrypha, but only see it as edifying literature, and not as a deuterocanonical supplementary. And yet far from being a threat to faith, the OT Apocrypha are a certain kind of witness to faith, specifically the faith of the Jewish people living in the period between the 3rd century B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E. And the R. Catholic and Greek Orthodox canons of the OT represent the basic Septuagint collection, while the Protestant OT has returned to the consensus of the early rabbinic Judaism concerning the limits of Holy Scripture.
PAX
Which scholar’s seat were you in, if it’s not a personal question?
I will not drop this on the blog, save to say I taught in both Jerusalem and Rome. I am just 60 a few months back.
Tyrone,
I will say this, in my 20′s for a time, I was a Roman Benedictine. It was perhaps, with my greatgram, my best formation spiritually.
Who will tell me about the Dunedin School of “Enlightenment”? Are any of you people who receive Sacraments and practice Christian faith?
Irish,
If I tell you, will you go away?
From the general tenor of your posts and given that you phrase your question as you do tells me that you have no real interest in what we actually have to say and are ready and willing to exclude anyone who disagrees with you and your particular form of Anglicanism from consideration.
The Dunedin School is run by scholars of religion and religious history. We are a collective and believe what we believe, though I imagine that we would all agree that logic and a critical historical consciousness act as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge.
Speaking for myself (though I didn’t write this particular post), I am an atheist. I have no sacraments and I have no faith, as faith is a religious – and largely monotheistic – position; however, I have a certain sympathy for religion as a general category of human endeavor. Take that as you will.
Eric
Eric,
I’m shocked, shocked to find that atheism is going on in here.
Mind you, I have long had concerns about Tyrone’s immortal destiny.
W
Rumours of my baby-eating have been grossly exaggerated.
You both make my point, with your attitude of making fun here! As both Jude and 2 Peter show, those that do so, scoff and belittle to their own shame and destuction, (2 Peter 2:12-13 / Jude 10) If the shoe fits, one must wear it!
I have tried twice to write, but my posts disappear when I seek to send…strange?
I will give now my quick thoughts….please read the works of one Anglican writer, E.L. (Eric Lionel) Mascall….his best on this subject, perhaps…’The Openness of Being: Natural Theology Today’.
Fr. Robert
Irish,
The shoe might fit, but, since the shoe in question doesn’t actually exist, there is no ‘must’ about me wearing it.
In any event, ‘shame’ and ‘destruction’ are two very fitting moves for an omnibenevolent deity.
I am fond of babies myself. I must be closer to the edge of things than our good friend Tyrone.
My last word on the matter … To paraphrase someone whose name I’ve forgotten: life is far too important to be taken seriously.
Eric
Eric,
I am certainly not your “judge”, but God’s Word IS God’s Word! My life experience does have some time for real friendship also, but it must be “real” for me at least. And real existentialism simply means existence precedes essence.
Fr. Robert
Irish,
Odd, I’ve always found your comments to be very judgmental.
Eric
Eric,
Well the Word of God makes “judgments” itself! Surely we human beings are very flawed, but as a priest and pastor I must at least seek to let the Word of God, cut and judge. It will surely be our “final judgment” and great “discerner”. (See Hebrews 4: 12-13)
Fr. Robert
PS..By the way, my father was a physicist (RIP), and had high regard for “mystery” as Einstein.
Eric,
Also if my posts appeared judgmental, it was because of the nature of one of your mates, or “fellows”. One Ms. Steph Fisher. She and I have had our down ways. Also the nature of blogdom is not always without constant ad hominem, I have noted. I am a late comer to the blogs really. I am seeking to do better myself. And I have come to respect Jim West also (just learning his satire).
Again, I am open to dialogue, if you still care?
Sincerely In Christ,
Fr. Robert
Irish,
I’m not at all sure that these sorts of forums are the best for ‘dialogue’, a word that is becoming more and more meaningless from lazy overuse, but we’ll keep on doing what we’re doing down here, and feel free to chime in when you wish.
Eric
Eric,
Thanks, I would agree about “dialogue” somewhat. Perhaps we should call it “apology” or defense? Mine and then yours, etc. This would be more honest also. I am a churchman and certain Christian, you are not, as you made mention. But I am truly baffled why you regard even some form of religious “enlightement”? It seems to be more of a negation. Would you not agree?
Fr. Robert
PS..Have you ever read any of E. L. Mascall’s works?
“God’s Word IS God’s Word”? Now, there’s no arguing with that, if I may say so myself.