Newsgroup: it.cultura.ebraica
Titolo: Un problema interessante trattato male

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/381135.html
L'articolo che vi riporto si può riassumere così: per quanto paradossale
possa apparire, il culmine della letteratura inglese è dato da una
traduzione opera di un collettivo di autori, ovvero la Bibbia di Re Giacomo
(King James Version), pubblicata nel 1611.
Non si può pretendere ovviamente che renda tutte le sfumature del testo
ebraico, eppure essa risulta ancora più importante di Shakespeare. Si è
riusciti a fare meglio in seguito?
Michael Fox, l'autore dell'articolo, prende ad esempio di moderna traduzione
in Inglese quella dell'editore Artscroll ( 
http://www.artscroll.com/
 ), e se
ne dichiara molto deluso.
Infatti il suo Inglese è letterariamente assai inferiore a quello della
Versione di Re Giacomo, e non è che sia stato il prezzo da pagare per una
maggiore fedeltà all'originale, anzi!
Qui finisce il riassunto ed inizia la mia opinione. Ciò che esigono gli
Ebrei da una traduzione della Scrittura è diverso da ciò che esigono i
Cristiani, e questo giustifica in parte le differenze tra la versione
Artscroll e quella di Re Giacomo.
Non tenerne conto è come pretendere di confrontare un camion con una
locomotiva, e lamentarsi che quest'ultima non ha il volante.
Un confronto serio sarebbe dovuto partire dall'esame delle differenti
esigenze di Ebrei e Cristiani, studiare se e come KJV ed Artscroll le
soddisfino, e solo alla fine chiedersi se i due approcci non possano
"ibridarsi" producendo una traduzione commentata adeguata ad entrambi.
A quel punto uno potrebbe anche chiedersi quale dei due approcci di partenza
è più prossimo a quello che vorrebbe proporre; ma così com'è scritto,
l'articolo è soltanto un maligno attacco all'Artscroll.
L'unica cosa che salvo dell'articolo, a parte la notizia del divertente
"lapsus freudiano" per cui uno stampatore inglese nel 1631 stampò
un'edizione della KJV in cui era scritto, papale papale:
_Thou shalt commit adultery = Tu commetterai adulterio_
è l'avvertimento che è meglio non prendere esempio dall'Inglese
dell'Artscroll. Ma è come ricordare che nemmeno D%o fa le cose impossibili.
Ciao.
Musings / Roll up this scroll
 
By Michael Fox
 
 
 
Much of what we read, we read in translation. It is commonplace that however
good the translation - and a translator must be loyal both to the meaning
and to the style of the original - something of the author's original intent
is inevitably lost. But one exception is always trotted out; one translation
into English that is said to be true to the original yet transcends it. The
book that is commonly regarded as the peak of English literary achievement,
the work that has most shaped English culture, is itself a translation. With
a confidence born of total ignorance, the literati have decreed that the
Bible in English is superior to the work from which it is derived. How else
can English pride accept that what has been called the greatest work in the
English language was not originally written in English?
 
 
 
 
The culture of ancient Israel is so far removed from that of 17th-century
England that there is little value in comparing the English translation of
the Bible with its Hebrew original. Still, it should be said that a
comparison is not always detrimental to the Hebrew. Take the justly
celebrated passage of Isaiah that the Authorized Version, as the King James
Bible is commonly known, renders as: "They shall beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks." Poetic and eloquent, yes.
But the original Hebrew has something that any translation must surely lack:
"Vehitetu harvotam le'itim vehanitotehem le'mazmerot." You can hear the
sound of the weapons being struck in the smithy with the repeated "t" sound
of this perfect example of onomatopoeia.
There can be little doubt that the standard translation of the Old Testament
into English is a literary masterpiece. Not even the plays and sonnets of
Shakespeare have so left their mark on the English collective consciousness.
Yet this Everest of literature confounds the theorists; by rights it should
be an inferior work. Not only is it a translation, it is the product of many
hands.
The King James Bible was composed between 1604 and 1611. The English
language was at its zenith. Shakespeare was still active and had yet to
write "Othello," "King Lear," "Macbeth" and "The Tempest." James I, no mean
scholar himself, had a "hands-on" approach to the translation that he
sponsored.
Two new books - "In the Beginning" by Alister McGrath, and "God's
Secretaries" by Adam Nicolson - vividly, though from slightly different
perspectives, tell the story of the King James Bible. Some 50 scholars were
divided into six "companies," each of whom was allotted different parts of
the Old or New Testaments. Each company compared its translations with those
of the others so as to achieve a cohesive style. The old joke about the
camel being a horse designed by a committee did not apply here for the
result was virtually seamless.
Reading the English Bible makes it easier to understand the legend preserved
in the Talmud of the miraculous origin of the Septuagint. According to this
story the Egyptian king Ptolemy had 72 scholars shut in separate rooms. Each
emerged weeks later having produced identical Greek texts of the Bible.
There have been many subsequent editions and translations of the Bible into
English, but they have all taken the Authorized Version as their starting
point. Of the innumerable editions of the English Bible, none is more
notorious than the version published in 1631, later known as the "Wicked
Bible." The printer omitted the word "not" from the seventh commandment,
which consequently read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The unamused
authorities imposed a massive fine on the hapless printer.
Massive exercise
Judaism has always had an indulgent attitude to translations of the
Scriptures. Jewish translations into Greek and Aramaic precede the Christian
era. But religious authorities have always regarded greater accessibility to
sacred works as a mixed blessing. The ultra-Orthodox community of the United
States has long felt the need for translations into English that reflect its
worldview. The lavishly backed Artscroll publishing house is there to meet
that need. Its excellent English version of the Babylonian Talmud is a
massive project. (A Hebrew Talmud is now also being produced.)
If you live in a bedsitter, the Artscroll Talmud is not for you. Because of
its quirky way of laying out the text, it will comprise when it is completed
no less than 73 large volumes. With that amount of shelf space, you could
house the Vilna Talmud, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Encyclopedia
Britannica - and still have room to throw in the collected works of Agatha
Christie in paperback.
It is when it gets to translating the Bible that Artscroll comes seriously
unstuck. It has no feeling for the poetry of the Bible. Artscroll seems
offended that the Bible is not only sacred, but also a fine work of
literature. The King James Bible does not make that error. It echoes the
rhythms of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek with its own mellifluous
Jacobean English. Few later translations have seen fit to alter its
treatment of the recurring theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes: "Vanity of
vanities; all is vanity." Artscroll, however, translates it as: "Futility of
futilities! All is futile!"
Even disregarding the suspect plural "futilities," it is evident that the
translator has a tin ear. There is no music in futility.
In stamping out heresy, the Artscroll in its translations is not above
tampering with the text. Contrast with the standard translations its
treatment of the Song of Songs, a powerfully erotic set of poems with no
apparent religious content. The book was admitted into the canon of the
Bible as an allegory and perhaps, one would like to think, for its literary
quality.
At any rate Rabbi Akiva called it the holiest of all books and the liturgy
of the Hasidim calls for it to be read every Sabbath eve. By means of
marginal notes the King James translators present the book as an extended
metaphor of the love of Christ for the Church. The line "a bundle of myrrh
is my beloved unto me, he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts" is
annotated "The Church and Christ congratulate each other," but the
translation itself is literal; the translators, though clerics, seldom
resort to euphemism in their translations.
Avian abominations
Artscroll, however, is not content to leave to its commentary an allegorical
interpretation. Religious correctness has compelled it to ignore the literal
meaning of the book entirely. See where Artscroll has placed that bundle of
myrrh: "But my Beloved responded with a bundle of myrrh ... the fragrant
atonement of erecting a Tabernacle where His Presence would dwell amid the
Holy Ark's staves."
Sometimes the demands of orthodoxy make the Artscroll translators give up in
despair. Chapter XI of Leviticus contains a list of 20 birds that may not be
eaten. The King James Version speaks of eagles, ospreys, vultures, owls,
hawks, cuckoos, cormorants and kites. Subsequent versions have altered some
of these translations in the light of later scholarship. But Artscroll's
house ornithologist must have been on leave when the avian abominations were
listed as: "the nesher, the peres, the ozniah; the daah and the ayah
according to its kind; every orev according to its kind; the bas hayaanah,
the tachmos, the shachaf, and the netz according to its kind; the kos, the
shalach, and the yanshuf; the tinshemes, the kaas, and the racham; the
chasidah, according to its kind, the duchifas, the anafah according to its
kind and the atalef."
Well, thank you for "and" and "the."
It's like the sign on the Ayalon highway (since removed) that directed
non-Hebrew speaking drivers to the Arlosoroff railway station with the word
`Raqevet' in Latin letters.
Artscroll's problem is that this list of unclean birds is an exhaustive one.
Any bird not appearing on the list is not forbidden by the written Torah, so
they keep you in the dark for your own good. Were it not for their concern
for your moral health, you might be tempted to barbecue your pet parrot.
There are occasions when Artscroll totally loses its always tenuous grip on
the English language. I have taken at random, and transcribed verbatim,
selections from their translation of this week's Torah portion. Jacob is on
his deathbed and is blessing his sons. To Reuben he says: "Water-like
impetuosity ... you cannot be foremost, because you mounted your father's
bed; then you desecrated Him Who ascended my couch." As for Simeon and Levi:
"O my honor! For in their rage they murdered people and at their whim they
hamstrung an ox." Judah's hand, however, "will be at your enemies' nape." Is
this the best Artscroll can do with the language of Shakespeare and Milton?
O, my honor, I am going to get it in the nape for my water-like impetuosity.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/
---
Per il manifesto, le FAQ ed un'interfaccia Web visita 
http://www.menorah.it/

 locomotiva, e lamentarsi che quest'ultima non ha il volante.
Sì, ma è anche vero che per gli ebrei il testo ebraico rimane quello
normativo e che la traduzione non deve per forza di cose essere
letterale-letterale. Cioé non ci sono grandi scuse per le traduzioni legnose
(e un po' censurate)
In Italia esistono due Bibbie accettate dal mondo ebraico. Una è quella
tradotta da Rav Di Segni (Giuntina), l'altra è la Bibbia Concordata
(Meridiani Mondadori) a cui hanno collaborato alcuni rabbini importanti tra
cui sicuramente Elio Toaff.
Nel mondo anglosassone, oltre all' Artscroll, esistono mi pare la Hertz
(vecchiotta, ortodossa, ma pare abbastanza valida) e le traduzioni JPS del
1917 e quella più recente (credo degli anni '70). La traduzione JPS recente
è quella stampata in tutti i Chumash non ortodossi di mia conoscenza (Etz
Haim [C], JPS Torah Commentary, Plaut Modern Commentary [R]), cambia solo il
commento. A me sembra scritta in buon inglese.
Stilisticamente, la versione Di Segni è invece orribile, mi pare che abbia
in comune con Artscroll almeno questo. La Bibbia Concordata è molto più
leggibile e godibile (ma non ha l'ebraico a fronte).
Anche dal punto di vista del senso vero e proprio, spesso riesco a capire
più dall'inglese della versione JPS che dall'italiano della Di Segni. Gli
episodi un po' "scabrosi", in particolare sono resi dalla Di Segni in una
versione che a me pare consaevolmente censurata, se mi affido alle note
quasi parola per parola del JPS Torah commentary (cinque  volumi poderosi,
che non di rado dedicano una pagina di commento e note di traduzione a
cinque righe di testo).
Sfido chiunque a capire qualcosa dell'episodio di Onan dalla versione Di
Segni, ad esempio. Ho dovuto affidarmi al JPS Torah Commentary e alle sue
esaustivissime annotazioni per venirne fuori.
Da un po' di tempo non studio la Parashah della settimana con l'aiuto della
"Concordata", visto che tre chumash aperti allo stesso tempo (Plaut, JPS e
Di Segni) sono già un bell'impegno. Ma proverò a fare qualche test qui e là
per vedere se oltre a essere più scorrevole è anche più accurata al testo
(come posso capirlo con e note del JPS commentary).
L'unico vantaggio della traduzione Di Segni è che è talmente schematica che
ti permette di capire meglio il testo ebraico. Quasi una interlineare.
Non direi però che questo requisito sia essenziale per una Bibbia Ebraica.
E' una scelta. Quindi, per concludere, se la traduzione ArtScroll è scritta
in un'inglese che fa schifo, è un problema di ArtScroll e rilevarlo non è
necessariamente un attacco ingiustificato all'editore (che in altra parte
dell'articolo viene infatti lodato per la versione del Bavli).
Tb
