| Feature Article – October 2006 |
|---|
Many commentators provide a fresh translation of the text to accompany their interpretation; but Alter’s version is not merely one which expresses his understanding of the text. By his own description, the translation was primary, and the commentary grew out of the work of translating. So, why did Alter think that a new translation was needed? He says it is because there is “something seriously wrong with all the familiar English translations, traditional and recent, of the Hebrew Bible” (p. xvi).
This critique comes from the viewpoint of a literary critic, not that of a biblical fundamentalist. For example, our old standby, the King James Version, is criticized for “its frequent and at times embarrassing inaccuracies”, “its archaisms” and “its insistent substitution of Renaissance English tonalities and rhythms for biblical ones” (p. xvii). And this is what Alter thinks of the translation which “remains the closest approach for English readers to the original” (p. xvii)!
Alter’s critique of other translations sounds similar to the argument of those who reject many modern translations as “paraphrases” and “interpretations” rather than “translations”; however, it is not quite the same.
The long-standing argument is whether the translator should aim for “formal equivalence” between the original text and the translation, or “functional equivalence” (formerly “dynamic equivalence”).
[See, for example, Philip C. Stine, “Eugene A. Nida: A Historical and Contemporary Assessment” (The Bible translator [Prac-tical Papers] 55(4), Oct 2004, 469-479).]
Supporters of formal equivalence, most recently represented by the English Standard Version, argue that by keeping the form of the original, the translator assures a literal, accurate rendering. The other side, most clearly represented by the publications of the United Bible Societies, argues that there is no such thing as a “literal” translation. It is very rare to find a word in the target langauge which corresponds to the range of meanings which the word in the original language has. The translator almost always has a range of overlapping possibilities. And it makes no sense to write an English sentence which uses the grammar of Greek or Hebrew. Formal equivalence, say most modern translators, does not produce a good translation; it merely results in a cheat sheet for those who know a bit of the biblical languages.
While Alter is not merely following this old argument for formal equivalence, many of his criticisms of modern translations sound similar. What is it that is so wrong about most translations? By trying to be clear and understandable, translators have lost the “semantic nuances and the lively orchestration of literary effects of the Hebrew” (p. xvi). “Literature in general, and the narrative prose of the Hebrew Bible in particular, cultivates certain profound and haunting enigmas, delights in leaving its audiences guessing about motives and connections, and, above all, loves to set ambiguities of word choice and image against one another in an endless interplay that resists neat resolution” (p. xviii). But the “heresy of explanation” (p. xxiii) leads to translations which “reduce, simplify and de-nature the Bible” (p. xviii). Far from the claims of formal equivalency to an exact translation, Alter says that most translations try to be too exact, and thus are also too bland.
Alter gives examples of how imagery based on words such as “seed” and “hand” is lost when translators try to explain, or when they use “the modern abomination of elegant synonymous variation” (p. xxxii). He also points out that ancient Hebrew was expected to be spoken aloud, and so the sounds and cadence are important. “The most pervasive aspect of the magic of biblical style that has been neglected by English translators is its beautiful rhythms” (p. xlii). Therefore Alter wants to convey the “mesmerizing effect of these ancient stories” by “cadenced English prose that at least in some ways corresponds to the powerful cadences of the Hebrew” (p. xxxii). “There is no good reason to render biblical Hebrew as contemporary English, either lexically or syntactically” (p. xxxii). And at the same time, Alter tries to do this in language that “has stylistic and rhythmic integrity as literary English” (p. xvi).
Is this possible? As one who has fallen in love with both the first Testament and with biblical Hebrew, I cannot help agreeing with Alter’s goals. But the task is huge, perhaps a contradiction in terms.
Next month: Has he succeeded?