Robert Alter's new translation of Psalms returns text to Hebraic roots.
Renowned Hebrew scholar Robert Alter has just released another translation of a portion of the Old Testament, this time of the Psalms--perhaps the most familiar and beloved book of Scripture among believers and nonbelievers alike. The Book of Psalms (Norton) is a near-600-page tome featuring Alter's translation of all 150 psalms, along with extensive historical and cultural commentary, which comprises nearly half of each page. Psalms is the next installment of Alter's biblical translations, following The Five Books of Moses (2004), Genesis (1997), and The Art of Biblical Narrative (1983), a foundational primer in how to read the Bible for its literary qualities.
Alter states in an interview with online Jewish arts magazine NextBook that his intent in translating has always been to capture and remain faithful to the intent and rhythm of the original Hebrew text. Such literary qualities that he says are often overlooked in some popular English translations are the parallelisms, plays on words, and what he calls the "terrific compactness of the Hebrew expression." Thus, some of the most well-known psalms, like Psalm 23, begin to take a different shape with Alter's translation:
Though I walk in the vale of death’s shadow,
I fear no harm, For You are with me.
Your rod and Your staff—it is they that console me.
You set out a table before me in the face of my foes.
You moisten my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Let but goodness and kindness pursue me
all the days of my life.
And I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for many long days.
Alter's translation epitomizes one of many ways to read Scripture. He and culture-makers who consistently give his translations glowing reviews (like the New Yorker's James Wood) understand the biblical text primarily as a piece of literature that features several passages of exquisite poetry and insight into the human condition.
What can confessing Christians, who believe that the Bible is so much more than a piece of great literature, gain from scholars who approach Scripture primarily as a literary text? Do we ignore translations like Alter's as being inconsequential in light of the Bible's transformative power as the very Word of God? Or do we embrace Alter's translations as fine pieces of scholarly rigor and great supplementary books to keep alongside our KJVs? How do we affirm the literary genius of the scriptural text, or should we?
To answer these questions, it may be helpful to consider a unique educational project that launched two years ago to address the overwhelming ignorance of the Bible among today's high school students. The Bible Literacy Project (for which Alter is a board member), offers curriculum to high school teachers to teach the Bible as the most important literary text of the Western world. The curriculum, titled The Bible and Its Influence, has been praised for its scholarship among secular and religious news sources alike.
Writing as a confessing Christian, it's worthy of celebration to hear that people who may never have opened a Bible otherwise are digging deep into the historical and cultural roots of this powerful text. Whenever the Bible is studied, even if it is being studied primarily as a piece of literature, who knows how the Lord might use those instances to illuminate the text far beyond a great book, but indeed, his very Word with its power to shine Light into our darkness? And who is to say that Alter's translations might not be used by the Lord in the same way--especially for New Yorker editors who may never otherwise touch a Bible with a 10-foot pole?
Yet the church has the opportunity to pick up where Alter's translations fall short and teach Scripture primarily as the Word of Life, and only secondarily as a remarkable piece of literature. We shouldn't be afraid to recognize the stunning beauty of passages like Psalm 103, Isaiah 43, or the entire book of Ecclesiastes (one of my favorites), knowing that this beauty is a mere vehicle for the power of a "two-edged sword ... able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).
Posted by Katelyn Beaty on October 30, 2007 8:39AM
Comments
I haven't come across much "praise" of the Bible Literacy Program. Just the opposite, in fact...beginning with Steven L. McKenzie: "Perhaps, therefore, the main question raised by this textbook is why biblical scholarship as an academic discipline is so blatantly ignored in a work that professes to provide an academic approach to the Bible..." McKenzie did find some praise for part of the textbook.
Society of Biblical Literature
http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=465
Southern Methodist University's associate professor, Mark Chancey. You'll want to bookmark this website, even if you disagree with him.
http://faculty.smu.edu/mchancey/public_schools.htm
My jaundiced eye sees the Bible Literacy Program, at least its website, as just another right wing message to our children. America was founded by and for Conservative Christians (who just happen to be mostly "white"), and all others must acknowledge their submissiveness to that God ordained hegemony and be properly grateful for any grudging tolerance they may toss one's way. Pay not attention to the fact that politically conservative Christians, during the Revolution period, were called Tories and Royalists.
There is also my personal criticism of textbooks in general...why are we loading down our children's backs with expensive ($75), heavy, coffee table sized extravaganza textbooks to carry around all day, when an inexpensive, lightweight paperback and a DVD/CR-Rom would be much more practical and probably useful?
Posted by: Greg at October 30, 2007
>My jaundiced eye sees the Bible Literacy Program, at least its
>website, as just another right wing message to our children.
Well, at least you're being honest about the jaundice :)
>America was founded by and for Conservative Christians (who just
>happen to be mostly "white"), and all others must acknowledge their
>submissiveness to that God ordained hegemony and be properly
>grateful for any grudging tolerance they may toss one's way.
Wow. Well, I know who are the only ones I hear going on and on about skin color these days, and it sure isn't "Conservative Christians".
>Pay not attention to the fact that politically conservative
>Christians, during the Revolution period, were called Tories and
>Royalists.
That (or what you are implying with it) is almost exactly backward.
The *theological* antecedents of today's "conservative Christians" were precisely *not* Church of England types. As you can still see today when you look at the CoE.
Posted by: holmegm at October 31, 2007
Political conservatism during the Revolution was in support of the King, who was the head of the establishment Church of England. Northern Black people generally supported the Revolution, Southern Black people generally supported the Crown, which they saw as a check on the slaveholders they knew all too well. They were right. the British Empire abolished slavery decades before the Civil War.
Of course, there were some abolitionist conservatives like Robert E. Lee, who supported abolitionism as a chance to rid America of all African influences. Given the costs and the failure of the "send them back to Africa" movement, however...he conceded that if the races had to live together, race slavery was the way to go.
As for "white" Evangelicals today and racism, the term that comes to mind is cognitive dissonance.
Just the other day, I saw on TV an SBC leader talking as if abolitionism had been what all conservative Christians had always supported...a largely Quaker initiated movement that had been quite radical and unprecedented in Christian history. If this wasn't a classic display of cognitive dissonance, it's cold blooded revisionism and cultural appropriation of the worst sort.
Posted by: Greg at October 31, 2007
Actually, Alter's translation of Ps 23 is quite faithful to the Hebrew. The point of contention, I presume is the last line, which Alter renders "many long days." He's right; that's what it says. There is a Hebrew word commonly translated "forever," [olam], but it's not used in Ps 23. Rather, the psalmist chose [l'orek yamim].
As Bible scholars (and publishers!) approach new translations, this is typically an area where they back down because of the deeply ingrained traditional rendering, "forever." Will people buy a Bible that challenges their traditions? Conventional wisdom on this point has said no.
Therefore, it seems to me that at issue is less a literary reading vs. a Christotelic one (and indeed, I hold to the latter!), but an opportunity to ponder grip of tradition on the church and the Bible, God's living word.
Posted by: Susan at November 1, 2007
Post a comment