It was also a chance to become wealthy, but Jill, who was dedicated to following the rules, didn’t question where the money went. The younger existentialists such as Sartre and Camus, with their gift for the terse novel or intense drama, seem to have omitted from their philosophy all the deep religiosity which permeates the work of the great existentialist thinkers. With numerous examples Barton shows that no one translation can be definitive, but all depend upon considerations such as the context, original language, the target language and audience, and purpose the translators have in mind.

From the Sunday Times bestselling author of A History of the Bible, this is the story of how the Bible has been translated, and why it matters The Bible is held to be both universal and specific, the source of fundamental truths inscribed in words that are exact and sacred. Blended versions that aim for keeping the core message alongside a sense of the difference of the original are highly recommended, particularly those of Robert Alter. His bestselling A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths was shortlisted for the Wolfson Prize for History, won the Duff Cooper Prize and has been translated into more than ten languages. He is co-editor of The Oxford Bible Commentary , and his previous book A History of the Bible won the Duff Cooper Prize for nonfiction. I found his observation that the translation preferred by someone often tells us something of how they experience God interesting.John Barton was Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at the University of Oxford from 1991 to 2014.

This book examines how saints, scholars and interpreters from ancient times down to the present have produced versions of the Bible in the language of their day while remaining true to the original. A key to her falling out with her family was orchestrated by Jim Bob, who introduced her to missionary Derick Dillard. So he has little time for fundamentalists and Biblical literalists who believe that its every word is sacred.And it forcefully makes the point that it may be unwise to rely on the same translator(s) for both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible is held to be both universal and specific, the source of fundamental truths inscribed in words that are exact and sacred. When reading Latin, it feels like a school master reciting paradigms and his German renderings is barely understandable.

When discussing gendered language of God, he admits "it seems to me that the Bible really does treat God as male. Are the words of the original the most important thing, and therefore to be rendered as closely as possible? True the book is not intended as a translation primer, but anyone with an interest in the theory or practice of translation will admire this masterly exposition. The Bible is a “sacred text”; actually, all source texts are sacred: “À la Recherche du temps perdu” (say) is unalterable (unless a new/improved manuscript source is uncovered) but you can have any number of translations; the most famous (Scott Moncrieff) may not always be strictly “accurate” (dangerous term, say “adequate”). It is also a delight that in the Scots translation of the New Testament, Satan speaks in RP English.

Even in the most practical sense it guides readers in finding the translation that best fits the specifics of their beliefs. Now, if you were to open the King James Version, you would get “Saul had reigned one year, and when he had reigned two years…” If you opened the New English Bible, lo and behold, it is “Saul was 50 years old when he became king”, and turning to the Revised English Bible, he is 30. It explains the challenges they negotiated, from minute textual ambiguities up to the sweep of style and stark differences in form and thought between the earliest writings and the latest, and it exposes the bearing these have on some of the most profound questions of faith: the nature of God, the existence of the soul and possibility of its salvation.