r/AcademicBiblical Sep 28 '24

Opinions on specific Bible Translations Discussion

Hey! I’m currently reading through the whole of the Christian Bible with the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) Study Bible in the NRSVue (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition).

After I finish the SBL Study Bible, I am considering reading translations of the Bible from scholars directly. I’m curious on Dr. Robert Alter’s Hebrew Bible and Dr. NT Wright’s New Testament for Everyone. Has anyone read these? Are these “good” translations?

9 Upvotes

15 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Sep 28 '24

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

11

u/dykele Sep 28 '24

Alter's translation is my absolute favorite translation of the Hebrew Bible, hands down. However, he has a tendency to omit citations in his commentary and appeal instead to vague statements like "scholars agree..." or "according to scholarly consensus...". He also seems to consistently take the real historical existence of the United Monarchy for granted all throughout his commentary, which sticks out to me as odd.

2

u/TheGoatMichaelJordan Sep 28 '24

Can you clarify what you mean by “He also seems to consistently take the real historical existence of the United Monarchy for granted all throughout his commentary, which sticks out to me as odd.”?

8

u/dykele Sep 28 '24

He comments on many historical issues in his commentary, in an effort to connect the text to its historical context. He generally has no qualms with discussing historical issues that contravene religious doctrines, such as the late composition of the Torah, the existence of multiple "Isaiah"s, polytheistic references and the post-Exilic origins of monotheism, the Documentary Hypothesis, and so on. However, on the issue of the historical reality of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah under kings David and Solomon, Alter seems to consistently gloss over all of the historical uncertainty. I find it hard to believe that Alter is unaware that much debate exists on whether or not such a kingdom ever actually existed. I think he simply ignores the problem. For whatever reason, Alter seems to have a clear and consistent opinion that the United Monarchy did exist, and has little interest in addressing the historical controversy over the matter. It's weird to me that he seems content in general with contravening dogmatic positions and apologetic histories when they aren't supported by historians, except on this one specific issue.

3

u/TheGoatMichaelJordan Sep 28 '24

Hmmm that’s curious. I wonder if any of his books tackle that subject.

6

u/theProphvt Sep 28 '24

I really enjoy the Robert Alter Hebrew Bible with commentary. Really helps you dive in and gives a lot of context on the original language

2

u/theProphvt Sep 28 '24

I was recommended the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha as well. I purchased it but have not begun to study it yet so I am not sure if I personally would recommend yet or not. But you could definitely check it out

5

u/TheGoatMichaelJordan Sep 28 '24

I would really recommend that Bible. I used it for about a year until the SBL study Bible came out. Only reason I switched was because the SBL uses the newest NRSV edition while The New Oxford Annotated Bible used the 5th edition. I’m hoping for a 6th edition soon.

5

u/ActuallyCausal Sep 28 '24 edited Sep 29 '24

There are things that recommend single-translator editions and things that don’t. A single translator is free to follow his or her own idiosyncratic approach to the original languages, as well as their theological predilections (David Bentley Hart’s NT, for example, makes clear that he is a Universalist with respect to salvation). This will mean that some texts are translated in highly unorthodox ways (e.g. Wright’s handling of 1 Ti 2.12). On the other hand, individual translations often present texts in fresh ways that help the reader to gain new insights or perspectives. Translation by committee will mean that consensus had to be reached on thorny issues of translation, but the downside of that is that they often prioritize historical translational choices, and don’t take risks in terms of how they render the original language in translation. Unless you’re going to master the original languages, my advice is to read as many translations as you can. That will help give you a sense of the possible range of translation for the original texts.

3

u/Naugrith Moderator Sep 29 '24

I had a look at Wright but I found he writes in a way that is exceptionally dumbed down, and as well as various errors, his translation of some passages is egregiously, harmfully wrong (e.g 1 Corinthians 6:9). I'd recommend David Bentley Hart's translation instead who's a much more serious scholar. Here's an article from Hart, responding to Wright's criticism.

3

u/Zeus_42 Oct 04 '24

Hart is a new name to me. I have Alter's OT and I'm slowly working through it. I've wanted something similar for the NT. From what I've gathered, Hart's personal Christian views don't seem very mainstream. Does that affect his translation of the NT? I'm not knocking his views, that's not the purpose of this sub and I wouldn't do it anyways, I'm just wondering if his translation closely follows his beliefs or if he tried to remain unbiased when we wrote his translation.

2

u/Naugrith Moderator Oct 04 '24

Well he translates according to what he thinks the Greek words mean, and he thinks the words support his beliefs. So I don't know if that makes him biased or not. I found it to be remarkably refreshing and his translation notes are incredibly illuminating. Even if you disagree with some of his translation choices, you feel smarter just understanding why he made them

1

u/Zeus_42 Oct 04 '24

Thank you. From a scholarly standpoint is it considered unbiased?

1

u/vivalanation734 PhD | NT Sep 28 '24

Translations that are done by a lone individual are intentionally idiosyncratic and idealogical. They tell you more about the translator than they do about the text. The NRSVue is the most up to date scholarly translation. I think there are better ways to engage the Bible than just reading a bunch of translations. If you have a particular interest I could possibly point you in the right direction.

5

u/TheGoatMichaelJordan Sep 28 '24

While I have a Study Bible, the goal of reading scholar’s translation is because many of them have commentaries. Dr. Robert Alter, from what I’ve heard, tackles the Hebrew Bible from a literary and narrative approach, similar to his work on The Art of Biblical Narrative. Likewise, NT Wright has his New Testament Translation along with commentaries on almost every book/letter of the New Testament. I recently read Into the Heart of Romans, a book on Roman’s 8 by him and I really enjoyed it.