No translation of the Bhagavad Gita into English will please everyone. The reason is simple: readers have different purposes in reading the Gita. For the devout Hindu and yogi, a translation that stays as close to the original Sanskrit is no doubt to be preferred. Yet even between Hindu and yogi there can be a difference of opinion. The Hindu, especially if he or she is of a conservative bent, may prefer a translation that chooses English words that support a literal interpretation of this great spiritual work, while a yogi, especially if he or she is follower of Patanjali, might prefer a translation that emphasizes practice and study. A general reader might prefer a translation that makes the text readily accessible without having to delve too deeply into Vedic philosophy. A student of literature might prefer the most elegant and poetic translation. And so it goes. A poetic translation must of necessity sacrifice some literal meaning, while a strictly literal translation may make for difficult reading. There is a dictum to which I subscribe, and it is repeated here by Professor Bolle on page 238, to the effect that when translating literature and in particular poetry, something is always lost in translation. Consequently, by this rule, if by no other, no single translation of the Gita will serve. Therefore we have many translations, and as English grows and our attitudes toward the world change, ever so subtly, there will arise a need for new translations.

Professor Bolle's belief that "A translation should speak for itself" (p. 220) means that one should be able to read the text and make sense of it without recourse to other works. As a practical matter this means that a work that arose in a time and place far different from here and now, and within a culture with assumptions, traditions and beliefs very different from our own, must perforce be somewhat altered from the original in order that we may understand it without help. Another of Bolle's beliefs is that if possible every Sanskrit word should be translated into English. Thus he avoids such words as yoga, brahman, karma, etc.

Bolle also believes that "a good translation creates the illusion that the text...could have been composed in the modern tongue of the reader" (p. 221). Very literal translations, such as the one Franklin Edgerton did for the Harvard Oriental Series many years ago, necessarily give up this illusion. Which is better, a translation agreeable with "the modern tongue," or one that is as close to a word for word translation as possible? As above, it really depends on your reasons for reading the text. For this reason, and for others, I believe that all translations of the Gita are good, and rate this book, as I have others, as a five-star effort. However, beware that there are some translations of the Gita that are not very good and would not in my mind rate even one star. Bolle gives an example on page 236 of an attempt by one Arthur W. Ryder from 1929 who rhymed every other line, e.g., "To work? or not to work? Such are/The questions that perplex/Even the poets. Therefore I/Will solve the doubts that vex,/Imparting knowledge apt to save/Your soul from sinful flecks..." (p. 236; Gita 4.16 ff.). Such an (interesting) effect is certainly not in keeping with the dignity and serious purpose of the Gita!

Bolle's is a very readable and accessible version in which the Sanskrit appears on the left facing page and the English on the right, verse by verse. The text of the Gita is presented first in this book without any introduction in keeping with Bolle's dictum that "a translation should speak for itself." The text is followed by Part Two, "On Translating the Gita," which is an elegant and fascinating essay on not only the considerations and challenges the translator faces in rendering the Gita into English, but on translating in general. There is a short bibliography and then a Sanskrit Concordance and an English Guide to the concordance. This is a superior book that ought to be brought back into print.

Imagine my excitement upon finding out that the eminent Assyriologist, Jean Bottero, whose excellent "Mesopotamia" I was reading at the time, had written a book about the Bible. What knowledge and insight, what a broad cultural and historical perspective he could bring to such an enterprise! Alas, no such luck!Despite a promising introduction where he speaks of the "fragility of his endeavor", what he serves up is largely a rehash of the Old Testament, not much different from any standard introduction to reading the Bible. In the long, 100-page opening chapter, he summarizes the documentary hypothesis (the J,E,D,P,R theory) which has been around for quite a while, accepts the chronology involving Moses, the Conquest, Judges, the Monarchy and Exile almost uncritically as the Bible presents them, amazingly, as history, and succinctly summarizes the 'plot'. During the writing of this book, the author apparently forgot almost everything he knows about he history and archaeology of the region, and consistently fails to relate the Biblical narrative to verifiable realities. What he does do is gush at regular intervals, about the Bible's greatness, accompanied by well-translated excerpts of text. I could accept that, except I'm looking for more about who, when, where, how and why the Bible came to be the book we know, not just another apologia.Part Two is better, consisting of four shorter essays about the Song of Deborah, the cosmology of the Yahwist and the author of Job, Original Sin, and the problem of evil in Eccleiastes. These show the author in a more insightful light, but I'm not sure they justify the high purchase price of the book. Richard C. Davis, Richard Elliott Friedman and others can give you most of what is here more economically, if not quite as eloquently written.

This book does not attempt to use the Bible as a history of the Israelites/Jewish people. Rather it is an intellectual history that traces the evolution of monotheism. It also addresses the questions that were raised by the attributes that were ascribed to the Israelite god. I.e., if god is just how does one deal with evil or collective punishment.
Although repetative at times, the book is generally well written and readable.