"The Gospels" and Translations

The translator Sarah Ruden has a new translation of the gospels (The Gospels: A new translation by Sarah Ruden"). I am not familar with her work though she is well respected as a translator of Greek and Roman works, not just biblical material. She has a book on interpretation (have it out) and an interesting sounding Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time.  I reserved that, always interested in clarity there.  She is a Quaker and dedicates her latest book to them; Quakers are particularly known for their belief of self-inspiration.

I took out the gospels book. The opening is an extended introduction on her interpretation, including an extended breakdown of how she translated various key words (like "demon").   This sort of thing is important, if here a bit academic sounding. You are reading English translations (well, I am) of foreign languages, languages in expressing things at a certain part of time.  A thing that is mentioned is that the gospel writers themselves had this issue -- educated Greek writers were translating persons who interacted in Aramaic in a specific culture.

The reader loses something in translation here.  A basic part of this is in the Hebrew scriptures where terms like "Lord" sounds generic but is it "El" or what?  The same applies in the Christian scriptures where terms that seem bland really involves special nuances.  For instance, proto-Gnostic energy can be found in Paul when "powers" or something is mentioned.  

The translator in the introduction noted that she was not trying to make a judgment when translating the gospels. She notes that the evangelists here repeatedly cited Jewish scriptures in a slipshod way (the Greek translation they used itself make things harder now, Hebrew imperfectly translated), losing the context.  But, though that might be noted in footnotes, that isn't her immediate concern.  She is trying to translate it the best she can.  Again, I have another book by her that might go more into the job of a translator, which has various ethical responsibilities. 

I just started to read the translations -- she starts with Mark though the gospels start with Matthew -- and you already see how her translation sounds a bit off.  It is "fishers for human beings" instead of the famous "fishers of men" line.  It is "wasteland" over "wilderness" (John the Baptist, the voice from the wilderness).  Maybe, that is a more accurate translation (hey, she's the expert).  Sounds a bit less poetic.  The Holy Spirit is cited as "life-breath." 

There is also a reference to Isaiah that is used a prophecy about how Jesus will provide a "straight" path in the wasteland.  The Acts of Apostles, not covered here, make references to "the way" as a term used for early Christianity.  I have wondered the connect to Shariah law -- also in some fashion a "path," and arising from a related linguistic tradition I would gather.  The term "Shariah law" overall is tossed out there as creepy, even though people regularly (and this used to be commonly accepted by legal minds, if not Thomas Jefferson) argue our own secular laws should be applied in a way that follows biblical laws.  They keep on citing it.  

Reading things people are generally familiar with can be very helpful as well as pretty interesting too.  There are a variety of complexities. So, reading the gospels in general can be an experience.  This without reading it with a new eye, including use of different shadings of various words.  One thing about this translation does bother me, even after a few pages. Now, maybe I will get used to it.  But, it still bothers me, in part because unlike translating words in a different way, I question its value. 

The translator translates proper nouns basically in a transliteration way, instead of using typical English translations. So it is the "Good News According to Maththaios" (Matthew) etc.  This is annoying.  Sometimes, you have to check the guide since the term does not really look like the typical word.  What is the point of this?  She even has a proviso that at this remove -- even at the remove of Augustine -- you are not going to be able to translate these things perfectly, nor were there on "fixed" usage anyway.

You are translating Greek to English, using Latin letters.  Why use a not familiar term for "people of Jerusalem" (it is not even a "J" to "I" thing there, "J" being a later development -- see the "INRI" abbreviation on the cross for Jesus of Nazareth King [Rex] of the Jews)?  It is not like the nuance of "life-breath" for "Holy Spirit" or something.  It is distracting and confusing, which is just something to handle if there was a useful value to the ordinary reader. And, this book is not solely meant for the scholar.  

She might have touched upon this in the introduction, something about wanting to be exact or whatever, but I still would question it.  Again, who am I to say here, not being a translator? Well, I am a reader, and that is what this book is targeted to.  She is trying to translate the gospels for clarity of the current day English reader, people like me.  The use of transliterations of Greek text for proper nouns here has a somewhat pretentious character there.  She is willing to at times sound almost colloquial but here she finds some need to be a stickler?

Anyway, the value of these translations are noted, including to try to get a sense of what the writers were trying to say.  But, some "originalist" approach here will only take you so far.  The average reader of scriptures can get a lot of value by looking into the context of the texts, which for instance helps flesh out the meaning of a parable or particular reference that without context can be confusing.  A bit of thing helps, for instance, when looking at texts used against gay people or women.  

Nonetheless, people are going to read the texts themselves and not take extended classes or something on the context or scriptural analysis involved. Bart Ehrman can helpfully provide, e.g., how scriptures are in effect a result of scrivener's error or developing understandings that were not so understood originally.  But, people read what is there, using their own modern day glosses.  Note again how the original gospels itself -- decades later -- translated things, in the process losing the original context in various cases.  If so, telling people the Greek translation of the "Old Testament" misconstrued what "virgin" means is almost rounding error. 

As with interpreting the Constitution and other scriptural works (lets say Shakespeare), the whole thing to me is complicated. All these things mix in. The original context is important as is translation matters (close readers of the Bible will note many versions will provide footnotes of a variety of complexity, at times almost a mini-commentary of the work)  as is finding a current day meaning to the work.  The complexity includes finding a means to apply the original meaning while also finding there is reasonable ground for discretion.  

And, if I find more to say after reading more, I will add more later on.  By the way, Rachel Held Evans was referenced elsewhere by a religious writer, a reminder of the two year anniversary of the tragic death of the progressive Christian writer and activist.  She died of one of those freak medical events that someone under forty has no expectation of handling.  Checking things, I see a new collection of her writings are due later this year. 

ETA: I finished Mark (yeah, I'm calling it that).  She includes a lot of notes providing "color" regarding various things to help add context to various usages.  For some reason, she does not suggest "Barabbas" -- which she notes means "son of father" -- is obviously a bit of irony.  The crowd asks for him while letting the ACTUAL son of Our Father be crucified.  

Nothing overly stands out for me -- maybe someone more familiar with the exact text will note something -- but a few times there is a feeling that we are getting a literal reading that comes off as a bit chunky for little return.  So, a well known line involving a "cornerstone" is translated as "head up the corner." The NIV verse is translated this way: "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," which sounds more poetic to me.  

If the poetry loses something, maybe at least having a more exact version will be useful.  Here, I'm not sure.  Again, the proper noun thing annoyed me.  It got more familiar but no less cost efficient.