
The Alter Bible - diodorus
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/279344/robert-alter-bible
======
lqet
Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the
bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article
makes obvious sense to me.

The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how
painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different
brains. So much depends in context.

> Perhaps the first person to openly suggest otherwise was Baruch Spinoza, the
> 17th-century Jewish philosopher, who daringly wrote that the books of the
> Bible ought to be studied in just the same way we would study Greek and
> Italian poetry.

This, 100 times. I am not a religious person at all. However, it makes me
extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of the the Bible / Torah
/ Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of the texts are. Of course
they are unrealistic - but so are the works of Shakespeare, or Dante, or
Goethe, or any great poet in the last 3000 years. Yet nobody would ridicule
Dante for assuming that hell lies in some cave in Tuscany. If you just dismiss
these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss
some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly
because of the shortcomings of any human language described above.

~~~
krapp
>However, it makes me extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of
the the Bible / Torah / Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of
the texts are.

I don't think atheists would have a problem with anyone treating the Bible (or
any religious text) as literature, since there would be a lot less religious
violence in the event that religious doctrine couldn't be cited as an absolute
authority.

But, many modern Christians insist that the Bible must be taken literally, and
that it should be taught as science, or presented as an alternative to
science. Those are the people atheists are making fun of, and they deserve the
ridicule.

> If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval
> masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just
> cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human
> language described above.

What Karl Marx meant by that is not that religion makes people stupid and
compliant (although sometimes it kind of can,) but that people use religion to
soothe the burdens of life in an unjust and cruel world... and that the
illusory comfort offered by religion often stands in the way of making real
societal progress. People who believe that God alone will punish the wicked
and reward the righteous and that every event, no matter how capricious or
unjust, is part of some divine plan, will simply tolerate the world and trust
God to change it, rather than try to change it themselves.

And yet much of what could be considered progressive moral change in society
has occurred in spite of religion, either through secular or scientific ideas
pushing against religious authority and supernaturalism, or through reform
within the religious community itself.

~~~
tomohawk
Karl Marx, whose ideas have been used to justify so much mayhem, misery, and
death - all in the name of 'progress'. I think we do without more of that sort
of progress.

~~~
krapp
So you're advocating abandoning scientific and Enlightenment principles and
returning to societies based on superstition and theocratic authoritarianism?

That seems like an odd stance to take given how much mayhem, misery and death
religion has caused but to each their own, I guess.

~~~
tomohawk
Societies based on Marxism - are they not based on superstition and theocratic
authoritarianism? Marxism is a non-falsifiable theory that appears to explain
things, but in reality it's just wrong, as shown by the many experiments
conducted to make it work.

Scientific and enlightenment principles got a huge push from the Bible. The
Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the claim
that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own right.
Many other belief systems emphasize that you can only know the physical
through the metaphysical.

~~~
krapp
>Societies based on Marxism - are they not based on superstition and
theocratic authoritarianism?

Neither my comment or the quote by Marx were referring to Marxism or
advocating a society based on Marxism.

And no, a philosophy that rejects religion can't be based on theocratic
authoritarianism, because theocratic authoritarianism draws its claim of
authority from divine right.

>The Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the
claim that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own
right.

The Bible claims that God created the earth and the universe in seven days,
man directly from the dust of the earth, and woman from the rib of the first
man. The Bible's claims certainly do not make science possible. No one needs
the Bible to claim that there is a physical universe worth studying, to see
that this is the case.

On the other hand, people _still_ believe evolution is heresy because of
Genesis, and will pray themselves and their children to death believing God
will cure them and that modern medical science is sinful. Belief in miasma
theory and Platonism, while not Christian, were religious in nature and held
back progress in various scientific fields and public health.

Religion may hold value in society as a medium for spreading cultural identity
and moral teachings, but deserves no credit for the cause of science, except
perhaps as the means by which early scientists and philosophers approached
inquiry (as a means of better understanding God's creation.)

But even then, the inevitable result was not to understand God, but to expose
and dismantle the facade of religion, claim by spurious claim.

------
whatshisface
> _Then there is Alter’s preference for “between his legs” rather than
> “between his feet,” which is used in all three of the earlier versions
> quoted above. A staff between Judah’s feet sounds like it is planted firmly
> on the ground, but a mace between his legs has a distinctly more phallic
> implication, as Alter acknowledges in his note: “the image of the mace
> between the legs surely suggests virile power in political leadership.” This
> is a vivid image of patriarchy, entirely appropriate for a speech in which a
> father is passing sovereignty down to his sons._

It sounds like the ancient culture wasn't living up to the modern reader's
expectations for how ancient literature was supposed to be read, so they
burried some nuts so that the other modern readers could find them as they
expected to.

~~~
baldfat
Well it even gets better.

1 Kings 12:10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, "These people
have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke
lighter.' Now tell them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist.

Little finger means his penis.

~~~
sorokod
The Hebrew version does not mention a finger. It just says "my little" \-
קָֽטָנִּ֥י

~~~
baldfat
Well the English translations add finger for a specific reasons. It was really
funny to talk about this in my second year of Hebrew. Hebrew is a really
pictorial language and it just made me die laughing. Another not as fun one is
to look at Noah and what it meant to have his son look at his father's
nakedness.

------
bencollier49
Fascinating that this made it on to the front-page of HN. I feel sorry for
this fellow in as much as his surname must cause some terrific confusion.

The King James version has remained popular as a result of its wonderful prose
- to see someone approach the Hebrew Bible from a modern angle with the same
intent is very interesting - I'll be having a read.

~~~
arethuza
Trivia: the discussions that led to the suggestion to King James VI to create
a new bible were held in a church a couple of miles from where I am currently
sitting:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burntisland_Parish_Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burntisland_Parish_Church)

~~~
coltonv
> Kink James VI

Quality Freudian slip here.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Reminds me of the Amboy Dukes song "Surrender To Your Kings", which on Amazon
music is listed as "Surrender To Your Kinks". I wish there was some way to fix
that because that error has propagated around the web.

------
otterpro
Translating Bible is a difficult task. There are usually two camps of
philosophy of Bible translation. There's the word-for-word style where words
are translated literally, rather than its intended meaning -- such as the
classic King James Version (1611 AD), and more modern NKJV, NASB and ESV. Then
there's thought-for-thought style, where it is translated based on its
connotation, intention, and geared for modern English -- such as the popular
NIV, NLT, and more paraphrase-style translations. I prefer the more literal
Bible, but it also makes reading certain passages more difficult, since the
original word used may not have the same connotation in English, and there are
ancient idioms that may not make sense in English.

~~~
verylittlemeat
Understanding the Bible by Stephen L. Harris is a great comprehensive textbook
for any person trying to understand the historical and metaphorical meaning in
the Bible. It's formatted like a college textbook but i found it very readable
for casual learning.

------
te_platt
I've always been fascinated by the difficulties of translation.

There is the issue of expressing the original thought. Already I've edited
this post several times.

Then there is the issue of the surrounding context which will be different for
different people. Even for people in the same culture at the same time in the
same place.

Then the issue of the attitude of the reader. It's not uncommon to get
different meanings from the same text on different days.

Now with the Biblical text we have copies of text from a different time,
culture, and language. I like how this article shows how hard it is to handle
even one sentence.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'd prefer a translator that just gave me the words and sentences. As a
receiver of that information I can learn to do my own interpretation.
Imperfectly and only after some thought and experience, but at least the
translator won't be 'in the way' changing the message.

~~~
larkost
I am left jumping to the conclusion that you don't speak a second (living)
language. There are very often thoughts in one language that can not be
directly expressed in another specific language. I have those problems quite
often between English and German (meaning the modern versions). Sometimes you
need multiple sentences to explain, even in approximate terms, things that
need only a single word in the other language (e.x.: "genau" or
"gemutlichkeit" in German, or "subtle" in English). And here I am not talking
about idiom (which can change rapidly). And German and English are
contemporary languages, with cultures that are driving them together (think
all of the U.S. films that are translated into German).

Now add that the Bible was written in a few now-dead languages, with 1900-2200
years since it was first written, and you are going to get a lot of
differences in thought, much of which requires you to have knowledge that you
are not going to be able to come up with thinking through it yourself.

Two examples of how fast things can change: 1\. When I first went to Germany
the word "geil" explicitly meant someone who was attractive, or good at sex.
So it was not really part of polite speech. 10 years later I went back to the
same part of Germany and the word now was used in normal conversations and
meant "really good", without any sexual connotations. 2\. If you look at
American Pilgrim literature you see a lot of references to "God is great",
usually alongside the phrase "God fearing" when talking about religious
people. This is because just a few hundred years ago the word "great" in
English specifically meant "powerful" in a violent way. Nowadays if you listen
to a Christian sermon in the U.S. they will still say "God is great", but will
be talking about how gentle and loving God is.

Language can move really fast, and thinking that you understand something that
someone wrote hundreds of years ago without a good interpreter is unrealistic.
There is always going to be an interpreter in the way. And one who just
"translates the words" is not doing you any favors.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Oh yes historical language, that's a deep subject.

------
xamuel
>Alter’s Bible doesn’t seek that kind of canonical status; it is not out to
replace the Hebrew Bible, but to engage in a dialogue with it.

The idea of engaging in a dialogue with the Bible is very important. It should
not be viewed as books set in stone, but as living documents that speak to us
today.

'Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the
kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth
forth out of his treasure things new and old.' (Matthew 13:52)

------
habeyer
Orthodox Jew here who went through the Yeshiva system (~10 years of full-time
study).

If you haven't read the Bible in the original Hebrew here's an analogy:
imagine the tactile, raw feel of Robert Frost, how the language he employs and
the deliberate choice of words makes his poems feel as if they rhyme. Now
compact all that into the extreme terseness of Emily Dickinson.

My weekly highlight is the public reading of the Prophets in the synagogue
every Sabbath. The language, the rhythm, it's beautiful.

------
stared
It reminds me of "The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb"
([https://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-
Crumb/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-
Crumb/dp/0393061027)), which I enjoyed.

He, as an atheist, tries to present it in the raw form, without "explaining
the hidden message" or any religious interpretation (neither Jewish nor
Christian).

