See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329883218

Review of The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart

Article · January 2018

DOI: 10.1353/joc.2018.0027

CITATIONS READS
0 1,150

1 author:

Leslie Baynes
Missouri State University
13 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

C. S. Lewis and the Bible View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leslie Baynes on 12 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart
(review)

Leslie Baynes

Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies, Volume 1, Number 2, 2018, pp. 217-219

(Review)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/711922

Access provided by Missouri State University (20 Dec 2018 19:19 GMT)

a sophianic dogma (172). However, in some
places the susceptibility of Bulgakov’s Or-
thodox theology to this “catholicization” is
surely overstated. For example, Slesinski’s as-
sumption that “Catholics and Orthodox sub-
scribe to the same ontological understanding
of sanctification” (95) overlooks the spec-
ificities of the Orthodox understanding of
Theosis, and the typically Orthodox disputes
surrounding Gregory Palamas and Barlaam
of Seminara. Furthermore, the question as to
whether the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Con-
ception would reduce the significance of the
incarnation is not addressed.
The following three chapters (9–11),
along with chapters 13 and 14, focus on the
“Greater Trilogy,” and introduce the reader
to Bulgakov’s Paterology, Christology, Pneu-
matology, and Ecclesiology. We find lucid ex-
positions of his ideas alongside constructive
development and notable critique. Chapter
12 dwells on Bulgakov’s work on relics and
miracles, concluding that both miracles and
relics point to the “inherent dignity of the
corporeal human body as confirmed by the
incarnation” (185). Slesinski is especially
critical of the ecclesiology outlined in The
Bride of the Lamb, which he claims fosters
an overemphasis on the historical charac-
ter of hierarchy. In the penultimate chapter
Slesinski goes far beyond previous intro-
ductions to Bulgakov and wrestles with his
complex philosophy of language, sensitively
expounding the triadic dynamic of subject
(podlezhaschee), predicate (skazuemoe), and
copula (sviazka) (232). In the final chapter
“Eschatological Hopes,” Slesinski paints Bul-
gakov, alongside his in some ways kindred
Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar,
as a universalist, who ascribes no ontological
value to hell, but rather views it as a privation
(244), supporting his argument throughout
with reference to The Bride of the Lamb.
Understandably, not all areas of Bulgakov’s
extensive theological output could possibly
be explored in a single volume. Arguably,
more space ought to have been devoted to
Bulgakov’s noteworthy theological appropri-
ation of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy,
OCS 1.2 3rd proof text.indd 217
BOOK REVIEWS  217
particularly their philosophies of antinomy.
Additionally, although Slesinski reminds us
of the importance of prayer and liturgy for
Bulgakov (40, 87), his uniquely Orthodox
liturgical spirit is somewhat overlooked.
Instead, the author draws more attention
to unfortunate miscalculations of liturgi-
cal feast days. Bulgakov’s iconology is by no
means insignificant but is also left untouched
in the volume, and even more surprisingly
Slesinski avoids any analysis of Bulgakov’s
lengthy treatment of the Filioque, an obvi-
ous point of contact for any Catholic author.
This being said, Slesinski’s contribution is an
indispensable and engaging read for any stu-
dent of Russian religious thought. The pres-
ent publication will surely establish itself as
an authoritative and insightful addition to
the ever-increasing secondary literature on
Sergei Bulgakov and may even provide valu-
able material for future ecumenical dialogue
between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism.
HARRY MOORE
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
David Bentley Hart. The New Testament: A
Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 2017. 616 pp.
Introducing his version of the New Testa-
ment, David Bentley Hart remarks that he
has often found himself retranslating scrip-
ture on the fly in the lecture hall because the
translation at hand simply could not get the
job done. Anyone who has taught the New
Testament can empathize with his plight.
Hart wants this book to fill the void, to “call
attention to features of the Greek original
usually invisible” in other English versions
(xiv–xv), and for the most part, he succeeds.
An epigraph adapted from the Oxy-
rhynchus fragments of the Gospel of Thomas
opens the book: “The Logos says: Lift the rock,
and there you will find me. Split the wood,
12/5/2018 9:47:13 AM
 218   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES
and there I am”. The Logos is a recurring, if
enigmatic, character in Hart’s work here, and
perhaps the most important embodiment of
his theory and practice of translation. His
version of John 1:1 is the only one I am aware
of in English that maintains the Greek word,
which carries along with it all of its subtle
richness: “In the origin there was the Logos,
and the Logos was present with GOD and the
Logos was god” (Jn. 1:1). Since Hart enjoys
the luxury of answering neither to a commit-
tee that might veto his choices, nor to a litur-
gical community that would hear rather than
read the translation, and therefore would not
have access to the notes that explain the intri-
cate significations he represents through cap-
ital versus lowercase letters, he can get away
with this. Certainly such verses fulfill his
stated goal of making “the familiar strange”
to his audience (xvii)
Many readers will find some of the au-
thor’s word choices a bit too strange, but in
almost every instance, he makes a compelling
case for his renditions either in the introduc-
tory essay, in the footnotes to the body of the
New Testament, or in his “Concluding Sci-
entific Postscript,” which includes the indis-
pensable “Irregular Glossary.” A few examples
of these words that pervade the book: what
many other translations term “servants” are in
fact clearly “slaves.” Readers may be surprised
to find Jesus consistently called the “Anointed”
here rather than the familiar “Christ” or
“messiah,” but “Anointed” is unimpeachably
correct. More disconcerting is Hart’s adjec-
tive “blissful,” which replaces the traditional
“blessed,” as in “How blissful are the destitute”
(Luke 6:20, usually rendered “Blessed are
the poor”). This reviewer agrees with Hart’s
self-deprecating but still “impenitent” state-
ment that the idiosyncratic makarism is his
“most insufferable decision” (567).
At certain points, however, his transla-
tion isn’t strange enough; it doesn’t lift the
rock far enough off the ground to see what
lies underneath. Hart notes that for the most
part “where an author has written bad Greek
(such as one finds throughout the Book of
OCS 1.2 3rd proof text.indd 218
Revelation), I have written bad English”
(xviii). In spite of this assertion, his trans-
lation of John’s apocalypse fails to be bad. It
is too smooth, too polysyllabic, and always
too clear. It goes wrong in the first verse. The
Greek of Revelation 1:1 reads “Apocalypsis
Iesou Christou,” a phrase supremely easy to
capture in a way that preserves its essen-
tial, and probably purposeful, ambiguity:
“An apocalypse of Jesus Christ.” Maintain-
ing the ambiguity is important because the
genitive “of Jesus Christ” is prognostic for
the whole book, in that the entire revelation,
from Alpha to Omega, is both from Jesus
and about Jesus. Hart’s version, “A revelation
from Jesus Christ,” flattens out the Greek, re-
ducing it to one dimension.
Several other word choices are also puz-
zling. The mystical living creatures (zōa) of
chapter 4 become “animals.” The arnion, or
lamb, of chapter 5 is overtranslated through-
out as “suckling lamb,” while the biblion of the
same chapter is not a scroll, as the footnote
to it rightly notes, but instead, and anachro-
nistically, a “book.” Although there are many
verses that would exemplify Revelation’s bad
Greek not becoming Hart’s bad English, Rev
18:6 is illustrative. My own truly painfully lit-
eral translation asks readers to “Give her back
what she gave out, and double the doubles
according to her works; in the cup in which
she mixed, you mix her double” (ἀπόδοτε
αὐτῇ ὡς καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέδωκεν καὶ διπλώσατε
τὰ διπλᾶ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῆς, ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ
ᾧ ἐκέρασεν κεράσατε αὐτῇ διπλοῦν). Hart’s,
on the other hand, tells them to “Requite her
even as she has requited, and redouble it,
twice times her own deeds; in the cup she has
mixed, mix twice as much for her” (524). This
is too smooth and elegant to represent such a
linguistic horror. To be fair, however, a num-
ber of his translations of the Apocalypse do
capture the awkward and/or difficult Greek,
including 4:11, “by your will they were and
were created,” and 16:3, “every soul’s life.”
Occasionally Hart produces a howler. One
example is the footnote that purports to ex-
plain the vexing phrase “son of man,” Jesus’
12/5/2018 9:47:14 AM

favorite self-designation in the synoptic gos-
pels. The footnote begins well—“son of man”
is in fact a Semitic idiom that can mean man/
human being—but it spirals out to unintelli-
gibility when Hart claims that “one ‘like a son
of man’ rides in the chariot of God in Ezekiel”
(first occurrence on 14–15 and passim). The
phrase “son of man” is ubiquitous in the book
of Ezekiel, appearing some ninety-three
times in the Hebrew, but it always comes
from the mouth of God when he addresses
the titular prophet, and it never designates a
charioteer, in Ezekiel or anywhere else in the
scriptures. Another howler rears its head in
the translation of James 3:3. Indeed, self-re-
specting mounts would be excused for doing
just that if someone “insert[ed] bridles into
the mouths of horses to make them comply”
(459). The Greek chalinos may designate ei-
ther a bridle or a bit, which are two related
but nonetheless distinct pieces of equipment.
A bridle is the (usually) leather headstall that
sits behind a horse’s ears and then goes down
both sides of its face to hold the bit, while a
bit is the (usually) metal bar that rests in the
horse’s mouth to direct it. No sober eques-
trian has ever wanted to put, or could suc-
ceed in putting, a bridle in her horse’s mouth.
To change tack and ask a question that
may be of more immediate interest to read-
ers of this journal: Is Hart’s New Testament
an “Eastern Orthodox translation” of scrip-
ture? Here, of course, one must address fun-
damental issues of definition. What makes
a translation Orthodox? Hart’s volume is
certainly not an “Orthodox translation” if
by that one requires ecclesiastical sanction,
as, to take one example, the New Ameri-
can Bible is officially reviewed by Roman
Catholic bishops. Furthermore, Hart makes
it clear that he did not work with an eye to
supporting Orthodox doctrine (xv–xvi), al-
though the final result arguably does so in
certain places. If one identifies an “Orthodox
translation” with integrating material from
the early church fathers, at least in the sup-
porting notes, then Hart’s book admirably
fits the bill. Whatever else one might claim, it
OCS 1.2 3rd
View proof stats
publication text.indd 219
BOOK REVIEWS  219
is a biblical translation by a singularly gifted
Eastern Orthodox scholar, and if that makes
it an Orthodox translation, so be it.
In a book as large as the New Testa-
ment, factors other than the quality of the
translation affect readability. Unfortunately,
several formatting decisions result in a less
than ideal reading experience here. Although
the title of each biblical book runs on top of
every page, chapter numbers appear only at
the outset of a chapter, making it more diffi-
cult to track one’s progress through the book
or to note a scriptural reference. There are
large blocks of text with very few paragraph
breaks. Perhaps the intention was an attempt
to replicate something of the experience of
reading an ancient manuscript in scriptio
continua, but it may instead be off-putting to
the twenty-first century reader. The last no-
table unfortunate formatting choice is small
but distracting: the first letter of the first
word of every new verse is capitalized, even
if it appears in the middle of a sentence.
In spite of these reservations, I would
enthusiastically recommend Hart’s New Tes-
tament to someone who doesn’t read Greek,
not because I agree with every translational
decision, but because it uncovers the ambigu-
ities of the Greek better than any other read-
ily available translation on the market—even
if I wish in some places it were bolder still.
LESLIE BAYNES
MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY
Rowan Williams. Holy Living: The Chris-
tian Tradition for Today. London and New
York: Bloomsbury, 2017. 222 pp.
Rowan Williams needs no introduction to
readers here. In many ways, the former arch-
bishop of Canterbury and now Master of
Magdalene College, Cambridge, is very much
orthodox. This, I mean, is characteristic of
the sweep of his theological and pastoral
12/5/2018 9:47:14 AM