Everett Fox 'tinkering with the Word of God'

It seems that Everett Fox regards the Hebrew Scriptures as human literature, something akin in English like the plays of Shakespeare. He is most interested in their entertaining qualities. To him, it seems, they are valuable as a part of human heritage. It seems that he considers himself one who restores, like those who restore damages old paintings or old furniture. There is a place for restored paintings and furniture—in museums and at auctions. I, for my part, am interested in the Hebrew Scriptures for their meaning, since I regard them as a channel of God's HEALING message to a sick and crippled humanity. As a translator, I consider my obligation is to communicate that message, not the forms in which it was first expressed. Willis

From Lourens de Vries. Views of orality and translation of the Bible. Translation Studies, Vol 8, Iss. 2, 2015, p. 5. Taylor & Francis On-Line. "The difference between moderate followers of Buber and Rosenzweig such as Everett Fox in the USA and more hardcore practitioners of these views such as Oussoren in The Netherlands and Chouraqi in France is that moderate followers tend to use the Leitwort translation strategy within smaller, literary units of the biblical texts, and then only when there is clear evidence for writer-intended conscious use of root or word repetition. But more hardcore followers emphasize the audible unity of the whole Bible and accordingly apply Leitwort strategies across books, at the level of the Bible as a whole, and with a much higher frequency. Colometric division of the text (Buber's Atemzug or breath unit) and audible allusions in Hebrew names are found in all post-war Bible translations that practice Buber's perspective on orality. For example, Everett Fox translates the name ya'aqov, "Jacob", in Genesis 25:26 as "Heelholder , to capture the sound similarity in Hebrew between 'aqev, "heel", and the name ov."

Thank you Andy for sparking a lively discussion, going on, I see, in other venues as well. I can remember my eye-opening experience learning Hebrew from Seow at Princeton, when he said these are stories meant to be read while sitting in your easy chair, sipping your class of beer. He used to read the text out loud in class and do his own renderings: did you hear that [passage in Genesis] naked snaked!!! (referring to the word play) This course (and one other by Mays) changed my life! Read the Hebrew and you will be shocked by the crudeness of many of the descriptions--if we can be so bold as to evoke the most sensitive of the texts which would shock people out of their pews--the sexual terms which could be euphemisms but seem more graphic than euphemistic. Then the outstanding poetry of the Songs, evoking through true euphemism, beautiful human experience (I will climb that palm tree, I entered my garden). I am not sure why anyone who embraces the Bible as the word of God would be bothered by down to earth renderings reflecting the true character of the text as it was delivered/recorded 'originally'. Alterity at its utmost. Is it wrong to allow people to have a glimpse of the earthiness of the Bible texts? Of course all translations have a skopos, and an intended audience whose wishes and expectations must be met. So let each one have his renderings. But I personally feel refreshed by attempts to get to what the real text 'sounded like' and the effects it might have had 'way back when'.