Couple of days ago I finished my grand project of 2008. I can now say that I have actually read the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. It was a great quest, one that has left me with even more questions than I had initially. (I took that as a good sign.)
Apart from having a better grasp of the Bible, the most important lesson I have learned is that very often translators simply cannot be trusted. Being a translator myself the notion hardly surprised me: innocent mistakes are made and personal judgments are often wrong. But for some reason I expected the Bible translators to subscribe to particularly high standards, unattainable to us mere mortals, the Bible being sacred writ and all. For instance, one would normally not expect to find bits and pieces deliberately mistranslated for the purpose of turning the Bible into a weapon in the ongoing culture wars. Right?
I started with this project in the spring and for that purpose I had bought the lovely designed English Standard Version (ESV) Journaling Bible. I have blogged about this edition earlier, uncritically and with some naivete. I still love it for its extra wide margins for personal journal entries and, more importantly, for the way it reads. Anyone used to the language of the Revised Standard Version or its celebrated ancestor, the King James Version, is likely to be happy with the ESV. Others might complain that its English sounds a bit unnatural and awkward. However, that is a matter of personal taste resulting from being steeped into a particular tradition.
But then came the famous "clobber passages" and the infamous insertion of words, phrases and concepts that simply are not there in the original languages. Basically, depending on where they (or, rather, their financiers) stand, translators will resort to pretty much anything to prove their ideological point. I am not being fair to real translators. People behind the ESV were involved in an adaptation, not translation. Besides, most of them are not known to be linguists of experts in Hebrew or Greek to begin with. It does say that it is merely an adaptation in the book itself, in the proverbial small print that I initially failed to notice, where it is stated that the text of the ESV is adapted from the Revised Standard Version, an earlier translation considered too liberal by some and now made new and improved for the conservative evangelical audience.
The realization made me angry at first. I even entertained the thought of getting rid of the ESV altogether and starting afresh with a different and more reliable version. But I persevered, because at some point the editors' biased choice of words stopped being relevant. The Book and I have had months and months of shared experiences behind us. I read from it every morning before going to work and every night before going to bed. I had it with me on my journeys, I continue to write notes and comments on its carefully studied pages... When I turn to, say, Nehemiah chapter 5 I instantly get the image of a crisp early morning at the seaside where I first read from the prophet. It is too late now: there are factors of shared history and emotional attachment involved. It has become mine.
After a while I figured out how to live with its shortcomings: by liberating it from its re-writers' political agenda with a little help from the texts in the original languages and a humble correction tape dispenser. I am absolutely positive that my intention is by no means more blasphemous (if at all) than the numerous textual interventions done by the "translators." Besides, the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life.
