海角大神

鈥淭o write yet another translation of the New Testament is probably something of a foolish venture,鈥� wrote David Bentley Hart in 2017 as he set out to do that very thing. 鈥淣o matter what one produces 鈥� recklessly liberal, timidly conservative, or something poised equilibriously in between 鈥� it will provoke consternation (and probably indignation) in countless breasts.鈥澛�

His translation was quite lovely and very well annotated (and gets extra points just for that 鈥渆quilibriously鈥� alone), but he was undoubtedly correct: translating the Gospels is a difficult proposition. One of our greatest living translators, Sarah Ruden, takes on that same proposition in her latest work, a new English-language edition of the Gospels translated from the authoritative Nestle-Aland edition of the Koine Greek in which they were written.聽

The ordinary people of those Gospels, including Jesus, spoke Aramaic, not Greek. 鈥淣early all the words attributed to them,鈥� Ruden points out, 鈥渁re thus in a language they may never have voluntarily uttered, belonging to a cosmopolitan civilization they may well have despised.鈥澛�

It鈥檚 one of the many layers that any translator needs to peel away in order to get at the Gospels. 鈥淭he heart,鈥� Ruden writes, 鈥渁nd the trick, of any ancient literary work is the nexus of content and style.鈥� But the core of her task, she admits, is unachievable. 鈥淚n general, I have had to be more blunt and literal than I would have liked,鈥� Ruden writes. 鈥淰arious concessions to modern accessibility were of course essential.鈥澛�

Readers of this new translation will search long and hard for those various concessions to accessibility. What they鈥檒l mostly find are tough peach pits of pedantry like 鈥淜aisar鈥� for Caesar, 鈥淏abul艒n鈥� for Babylon, 鈥淕alilaia鈥� for Galilee, and, of course, 鈥淚膿sous鈥� for Jesus. Ruden鈥檚 rhetoric throughout is sharp and bright, as compulsively readable as she contends the originals were written to be. But this decision to swap the familiar nomenclature of 10 centuries for halting tongue-twisters is both the most noticeable of Ruden鈥檚 rare missteps in this project.聽

Her thinking about the Gospels as works of literature is electrifying, and it鈥檚 often reflected in her translation choices. 鈥淭he Gospels are not about Jesus; they are Jesus,鈥� she contends. 鈥淚n the Gospels鈥� content, the contrast is even sharper. In these new works, there is really only one figure, and only one voice,鈥� she goes on. 鈥淚n the Gospels, no one is essential but Jesus.鈥� This kind of bright pedagogy has been at the heart of all Ruden鈥檚 excellent translations, including her 鈥淎eneid鈥� and her bracing version of St. Augustine鈥檚 鈥淐onfessions.鈥澛�

But ultimately, that nexus of content and style is the most important acid test of any translation, and many of Ruden鈥檚 choices will strike readers as decidedly odd. Take the moment in Luke 4:33 when Jesus 鈥� or rather, I膿sous聽鈥� casts a demon out of a man: 鈥淎nd in the synagogue was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon in him, and he screamed in a very loud noise, 鈥楴o! What鈥檚 your business with us, I膿sous the Nazar膿nos! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: god鈥檚 holy one.鈥� And I膿sous聽took him to task, saying, 鈥楶ut a muzzle on it and come out of him!鈥欌�澛�

That 鈥減ut a muzzle on it鈥� is surely, surely designed to seize the eye; quite apart from its linguistic justification, it鈥檚 designed to break with the dusty momentum of the past and present the Gospels in something like the tonal register their earliest readers would have encountered.聽

The question every reader will have to answer is very simple: Is that desirable? When it comes to 鈥淧etros鈥� for Peter or 鈥淚艒ann膿s鈥� for John, the answer is immediate: No, it鈥檚 not. It merely serves to alienate the monoglot reader with scholarly affectation.聽

But what about the rest of it? Ruden is never less than interesting, and one of her obvious goals 鈥� to transform these most familiar of聽 ancient texts into fresh reading experiences 鈥� is reached on every page. The Gospel of St. John in particular comes alive at her touch, revealing all its great strangeness.聽

And yet, even in John readers will be driven to decide how much 鈥� if at all 鈥� they prize innovation or even technical accuracy over the rich heritage of the Gospels that is, after all, one of the treasures of Western culture.聽

Ruden鈥檚 John, for instance, begins: 鈥淎t the inauguration was the true account, and this true account was with god, and god was the true account.鈥� And the King James Version? Famously and beautifully: 鈥淚n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.鈥� Some of these choices won鈥檛 be difficult.