David Bentley Hart replies to N. T. Wright's Critical Review
I thought about just adding this as a comment on the post about Wright's review of Hart, but felt that might be privileging Wright's review and burying Hart's response. The debate between them is fascinating. I don't have the impression that either of them is particularly well-informed by contemporary translation theory/studies. They each prefer a particular kind of translation and can use it to make their pet theological issues stand out.
I think niche translations like those of both Hart and Wright are helpful in particular ways, especially as reminders that the translations to which we are accustomed are not the only ways certain things can be handled. We can gain a false sense of familiarity and sense that the biblical texts are perfectly clear that they mean what our familiar translations suggest they do. In this debate, Wright doesn't like the ways Hart's translation reflects his Orthodox theology, but it is a useful reminder how much of our translations may already reflect our own Western interpretative traditions.
Translation differences can cause us to look back again at things that we haven't looked as as carefully as we might, and that is almost always healthy (even if we decide we were right in the first place).
4 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
In his response to one of his readers on his page DBH also says: " It annoyed me also that he chose to give a remarkably distorted impression of my translation by treating normal words as arcane, by failing to distinguish between different schools of translation theory..." Though I find DBH's translation quite idiosyncratic, I must agree with him that NT Wright's review is a bit selective and gives the impression of having been done a bit "haphazardly" . Whatever one might say of DBH's ideas or translation, I did expect more from Wright's review. And the greatest crime here is probably Wright not interacting with the "translation brief" . which DBH clearly states in his introduction.
I agree that Wright's review was not well executed (or well considered). I confess, what DBH considers "normal words" (vs. arcane) and what I consider "normal words" are two different things. But his is a particular academic register of English, I think. Alan Jacobs's joking suggestion of what DBH's shopping list must look like takes a jab at his writing style: http://blog.ayjay.org/david-bentley-harts-grocery-list/
Thanks for letting us know about Hart's reply to N.T Wright's review of his Yale-sponsored translation. Very interesting reading in light of a translation studies perspective. There is indeed much rehashing of old translation arguments in the cline between literal and non-literal. I wish all individually-authored translations would state from the start what Hart mentioned in his response to Wright, quoted below. Bracketed insertion is mine. "On the other hand, some of our differences [choices] appear to be matters of personal formation and education." "Some" of our differences?
Ok... I will be waiting for Wright's reply to Hart's reply to his review... and then I'll reply. Lets the hunger games begin!