Psalm 1: A Translator’s Nightmare

Over at the “gold standard” blog for discussion of the Bible in English, David Ker asks what people want to hear discussed when it comes to Bible translation. I am not surprised by the majority of the responses, which I would rephrase in this way:

You must remember this: A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh. The fundamental things apply: As time goes by.

In straight-up, propositional language: the Bible in English debate continues to center on the relative merits and demerits of translations that are as “literal as possible and as free as necessary” on the one hand, and, on the other hand, translations that choose natural, field-tested English over traditional and more literal alternatives apart from a short list of apparently unavoidable Biblicisms such as “baptize” and “Christ.” The latter is, as every field-tester knows, Jesus’ last name.

In this post, I begin to take a look at Psalm 1:1-2 as rendered in ESV - a popular “essentially literal” translation, and NLT2 - the DE [dynamic equivalence] translation of the hour. I will point out strengths and weaknesses of each translation. Ultimately, my goal is to convince anyone with sufficient time and intelligence – that would be you, dear reader – to learn Hebrew so that you can experience the biblical text directly, rather than kiss it, so to speak, through a dirty sheet (HT to Jim West, I believe, for the metaphor). My secondary goal is to point out that translation work with a “thick” text like Psalm 1 is an absolute nightmare. No matter how one slices and dices it, the text gets mangled and a lot of meat ends up on the floor.

Here is the Hebrew:

אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר

   לֹא הָלַךְ

   בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים

וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים

   לֹא עָמָד

וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים

   לֹא יָשָׁב

כִּי אִם בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ

   וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה

   יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה

Here is my translation, like ESV and NLT2, with its own set of strengths and weaknesses:

Happy the one

     who has not walked

     in advice of the wicked,

and has not stood

     in the way of villains,

and has not sat

     in the seat of scoffers,[1]

rather, his pleasure is in יהוה’s instruction,[2]

     and he recites that instruction

            day and night.

[1] Shorn of metaphors but with the rhetorical crescendo highlighted: “Happy the one who has not followed advice of those of criminal intent, or - worse still - permanently chosen the way of villainy, or - worst of all - taught others to do likewise, as scoffers do.” In ancient times, one sat in a seat (cathedra, as in ex cathedra) to judge or teach. Scoffer: someone who is insubordinate to the moral order established by God and who mocks those who conform themselves thereto. [2] Instruction: teaching (Heb. torah).

Here is ESV:

1:1 Blessed is the man [1]

           who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,

nor stands in the way of sinners,

           nor sits in the seat of scoffers;

2 but his delight is in the law [2] of the Lord,

           and on his law he meditates day and night.

[1] 1:1 The singular Hebrew word for man (ish) is used here to portray a representative example of a godly person; see preface

[2] 1:2 Or instruction

Here is NLT2:

1 Oh, the joys of those who do not

  follow the advice of the wicked,

  or stand around with sinners,

  or join in with mockers.

2 But they delight in the law of the LORD,

  meditating on it day and night.

Rick Mansfield informs us that NLT2 outsells ESV, not to mention JHV (my translation), so I will pick on NLT2 first. Here are my observations:

(1)            NLT2’s diction is far less colored by Biblicisms than is ESV and JHV, but not even NLT2 does without Biblish altogether. Phrases like “the wicked,” “sinners,” and “the law of the LORD” have “Bible” stamped all over them. It is possible to eliminate Biblish completely, but only at the cost of moving still further from the semantic and poetic details of the Hebrew original. For example, one might substitute “follow criminal advice,” “put in their lot with villains,” and “They find joy in God's instruction instead, and ponder it day and night.”

(2)             Psalm 1:1 in the Hebrew contains a crescendo of three metaphorical expressions descriptive of ever more serious departure from the straight and narrow. See note [1] to JHV above. NLT2 eliminates the sequenced metaphorical expressions on two occasions and substitutes a partially equivalent and un-sequenced metaphorical expression for the one in the original on the third occasion. The crescendo is lost in translation. The string of metaphorical expressions is lost in translation. The concordance of this verse’s metaphorical expressions with other passages in both the Old and New Testaments is lost in translation. For example, “walk in” advice/ truth etc. is a Hebraism that occurs with a certain frequency. NLT2 eliminates it in a majority of cases. It’s all right to talk about someone walking, metaphorically, in the light or darkness (Isa 2:5; John 8:12; 1 John 2:11), but, not apparently, in peace and righteousness (Malachi 2:6) or truth (1 Kings 2:4; 3 John 1:4). “Walk in the counsel / advice” of someone, admittedly, is a pure Hebraism, though not, I think, difficult to comprehend. But honestly, I don’t know what to make of the fact that NLT2 renders “let us walk in the light of the Lord” (Isa 2:5) but not “walk before me in truth” (1 Kings 2:4).

(3)       “Oh the joys of” is an interesting translation. It virtually transliterates the syntax of the Hebrew, which has “O the happinesses of.” That might be considered a plus in an “essentially literal” translation, but “essentially literal” translations and translations like my own, which seek to be faithful to the stylistic choices of the original and to preserve concordance where possible across discrete passages, books, and covenants (OT and NT), prefer “Blessed is” and/or “Happy (is)” for reasons of versatility. NLT2 sacrifices concordance across parallel passages on a very regular basis in the interests of maximum intelligibility on a passage per passage basis. A tradeoff is involved. It should be clear that either way one goes, it is a win-one and lose-another proposition.

(4)         “Meditating” is a traditional rendering that goes all the way back to the Old Greek (commonly referred to as the Septuagint) translation. By so translating, concordance, at least potentially, is preserved with passages where the same idiom (a Septuagintalism) is used in the NT (Acts 4:25 = Ps 2:1; perhaps also 1 Timothy 4:15). In reality, NLT2 translates so differently in each case that the semantic connection is invisible. “Meditating” is a traditional but not a particularly accurate translation. The Hebrew refers specifically to recursive verbal or sonic expression. It can be used in reference to the coo of a bird, the roar of a lion, the resounding praise of a worshiper, or, as here, of one who “recites aloud” and “reiterates,” from memory or from a written text, the instruction or torah of the Lord. Thus, in Josh 1:8: “Let not this Book of Instruction [torah, as here] depart from your lips, but recite it day and night [same phraseology as here].” The specificity of the Hebrew does not come through in NLT2. NLT2 does however translate Ps 1:2 and Josh 1:8 concordantly. Would that it translated concordantly more frequently. [Some interpreters think Psalm 1:2 refers specifically to “heart-recitation” = meditation, rather than “mouth recitation,” but Josh 1:8 and Deut 17:18-20 (where “read” means specifically to “read aloud”) suggest otherwise].

(5)         It gets my goat that NLT2 pluralizes the singular references throughout Psalm 1. As other exegetes have noted, the contrast of the one and the many is an essential component of the psalm’s semantic configuration. ESV is preferable in this regard. Of course, ESV’s choice to use “man” as a generic reference to “person” (see its footnote) will be found reprehensible to some and commendable by others. Just last night a member of my congregation, a volunteer firefighter, told me she preferred to be referred to as a “fireman.” Sorry to offend, my dear. My own stance: the generic use of “man,” “his,” etc., is worth defending, in the interests of historical continuity and poetic versatility, quite apart from the culture wars. In that case, however, it is important to clarify matters with a note, as ESV does.

My deepest gripes with NLT2 are the following. They are not minor details.

(1) As DE translations are wont to do, NLT erodes the inner coherence of the biblical witness by translating recurrent idioms every which way. For example, macarisms are rendered in the following disparate ways: as just seen, 'Oh the joys of' (Psalm 1:1); 'How blessed [is]' (Deut 33:29); 'Blessed [is]' [Dan 12:12, Matthew 13:16]; 'Happy is' (Psalm 137:8-9); 'Joyful is' (Prov 3:13); 'God blesses [the one who]' (Matthew 5); 'Fortunate indeed [is]' (Luke 23:29). A translation like 'God blesses those who mourn, for they will be comforted' (Matthew 5:4) is problematic on more than one count, with its half-baked rather than full-baked restructuring of the syntax. Why not go the whole hog: ‘God blesses those who mourn. They are the ones he will comfort.’? But I prefer: ‘Blessed are those who mourn. They will be comforted.’

(2) As DE translations are wont to do, Hebraisms which have, thanks to the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV translation tradition, deep roots in the English language, are pulled up like so many weeds and thrown into the fire – except insofar as they occur in the New Testament, where they are preserved against what is now a submerged background. For example, the expression 'find favor in the eyes of' man or God disappears in many key loci in the OT: 'you have been so gracious to me' (Gen 19:19); 'if the LORD sees fit' (2 Sam 15:25); 'kind enough to let me do it' (Ruth 2:2); 'what have I done to deserve such kindness' (Ruth 2:10 – it should be pointed out that NLT rewrites the entire verse out of apparent discomfort with the cultural content of the Hebrew: discomfort of this kind, which I feel as much as the next person, should not be allowed to lead to bowdlerization in translation), 'I hope I continue to please you '(Ruth 2:13); but, in the NT, '[Mary] find[s] favor with God' (Luke 1:30); 'David found favor with God' (Acts 7:46).

Notice how David is allowed to 'find favor with God' in the New Testament, but not in the Old. Let me say it flat out: the NLT2 team was willing to do things in its translation of the OT they dared not do in the NT. The result is stark inconsistency.

To be continued.

Comments

[Daniel]

John,

Great post. My group of readers (currently in Ruth) are gonna move from narrative to poetry in the next week and will be covering Ps 1 and 2, so thanks for the review! 2 things about your translation...

1. It seems to me, and I am very open to correction, that "happy" is predicated to "the one" in Hebrew. So why not supply "is" in your English rendering. Your translation does not reflect an attributive sense (like "the happy man", which would be wrong), so why not help your readers with an "is"?

2. I am very interested in your rendering of verbal tense/aspect as opposed to the 2 others. Your translation renders qatal verbs as perfect/past and yiqtol verbs as imperfect/present. The ESV and NLT render all verbs into an English present tense. As a grammar student, your translation makes most sense (and says something different from the other 2), but I also know that verbs don't always work in poetry they way they do in narrative. Would that not be the case here?

Thanks,
Daniel

[JohnFH]

Daniel,

Good to hear from you.

"Happy is the one" probably works better, as you say. So REB. The translation I prefer is actually that of Alter, which is "Happy the man who." That seems natural English to me. I substituted 'one' for 'man' in deference to the concern for gender inclusivity - a concern, however, which clashes here, as often, with poetic and other semantic considerations.

I discuss the qatal-yiqtol contrast a bit more in my next post.

[Stephen Barkley]

John,

I had a professor in seminary who used to remind us that reading the Bible in English is like sipping a fine wine through a tea bag. Just another metaphor for your arsenal.

I echo your frustration with the NLT2's lack of inner coherence. Approaching the issue from a pastoral perspective, though, I know parishioners who never consistently read the Bible until I handed them a DE translation. They rely on teaching and preaching to bring out the nuances lost by their version. It's not ideal, but maybe better than nothing?

[JohnFH]

Stephen,

You make an excellent point. Indeed, it is possible and necessary to compensate for the limitations of any translation from the pulpit.

[Peter Kirk]

It is only "possible ... to compensate for the limitations of any translation from the pulpit" if the readers actually listen to anything said from the pulpit. In other words, that rules out any Bible readers who do not attend church regularly, as well as any who attend churches whose pastors consider that they have more important things to do in their limited time in the pulpit than correct inadequacies in Bible translations.

[JohnFH]

All Bible translations are only a point of departure for understanding the message the Bible contains. This is true whether the context of Bible reading is individual, group, ecclesial, or academic in type.

From a faith perspective, it is misleading to suggest - as I think you wish to imply - that all one needs is a good DE translation and one is home free. When was the last time you taught a class of 7th or 8th graders or new Christians learning the basics of the faith and their way around Scripture?

I can assure you, a good DE translation (my confirmands use TNIV), in and of itself, gets them virtually nowhere. Much deeper intellectual and spiritual engagement is required to make real progress. What translation is used, FE or DE in type, is a minor, almost insignificant detail.

Just pointing out the obvious.

[Peter Kirk]

John, I can largely agree with you here; readers of any kind of Bible are going to need help. But I wanted to get away from the position that it doesn't matter how unclear a translation is because the preacher can always clarify. That works only if Bible reading is restricted to church settings, not the normal Protestant view.

[David Ker]

Sorry I missed out on this. My brain is not too sharp. I guess it's all the sunshine and waves...

I do have serious questions about your and Iyov's "purposeful obfuscation" or whatever it is you're calling it. But I'm all for ambiguity despite the accusations of being a clarity freak.

[JohnFH]

David,

Do you know that Cockburn song, "All the diamonds in this world that mean anything to me, are conjured up by wind and sunlight dancing on the sea"?

Enjoy your diamonds. For the record, I am less of a fan of obscurity than Iyov might seem to be (but see his actual post on the subject).