The Pros and Cons of ESV Psalm 1:1-2

Read this first.

In some ways, NLT2 and ESV stand at opposite poles. NLT2 tends to translate in clear, natural, contemporary English, without regard for the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV translation tradition. ESV adheres to the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV tradition in terms of the revision it was given by RSV more than a half-century ago. To be sure, ESV corrects RSV toward the Masoretic text as understood by contemporary philology. Far less often than RSV, it resorts to conjectural emendation or correction of MT based on an ancient version. In addition, though very rarely, more or less as Jerome did in his day, ESV corrects the Masoretic text to accord with Christian interpretation of it (as in Isaiah 7:14). RSV did this too, but less often still (as in Zechariah 9:9).

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

In Ps 1:1-2, ESV reproduces RSV verbatim, with the addition of two footnotes: “man” is to be understood generically to refer to a person of either gender; “law” might also be translated “instruction.”

Indeed, “instruction” is a far more idiomatic translation of Hebrew torah than is “law.” After all, torah in the Hebrew Bible is the term used for a mother’s instruction of her child (Proverbs 1:8). In that verse torah appears as “teaching” in ESV and as “instruction” in NLT2. Go figure. The fact of the matter: “law” with reference to God’s instruction has the advantage of concordance with Greek nomos, translated “law” in the New Testament with reference to God’s law or the law of Moses. The translation of torah with “law” is a case of canon consciousness trumping the possibility that the Old Testament be allowed to speak in its own voice. Let it be noted at once: NLT2 and ESV do not differ from other non-Jewish translations of the Bible in this regard. NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJB all have “law” in Psalm 1:2.

In short, it is still the case that if one wants to read the Hebrew Bible on its own terms in translation, it is necessary to read it in a Jewish translation. NJPSV and Alter have “teaching” in Psalm 1:2. NJPSV has “instruction” in Josh 1:8; Buber-Rosenzweig chose to translate Torah with the inimitable “Weisung” = “direction.” I could give still other examples, such as the translation of Chouraqui in French, but the point would be the same.

In my view, NLT2 and ESV complement one another nicely and at the same time, render NRSV - in this locus - obsolete. That is, NRSV in comparison comes out looking like a hopeless hodgepodge of a translation, insofar as conflicting commitments to the principles of dynamic equivalence, gender inclusivity, and loyalty to the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV translation tradition coexist in unresolved tension. In short, NRSV reads like a cross between NLT2 and ESV in terms of translation technique:

1 Happy are those

           who do not follow the advice of the wicked,

or take the path that sinners tread,

           or sit in the seat of scoffers;

2 but their delight is in the law of the Lord,

           and on his law they meditate day and night.

In fact, NRSV is a revision of RSV(=ESV) along DE lines and in accord with a principle of gender inclusivity such that, as in NLT2, singular references are converted to plural references if gender inclusivity is thereby achieved.

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

(1) As FE (Formal Equivalence) translations are wont to do, ESV tends to give us the text in archaic and odd grammatical dress even though the grammar of the underlying Hebrew is simple, clean, and non-recherché. Such is certainly the case in Psalm 1:1-2. Making matters worse, ESV is archaic and odd in supposed faithfulness to the Hebrew even as it neutralizes a salient grammatical opposition thereof: the qatal –yiqtol contrast across the two verses.

We expect the kind of neutralization and simplification we find in ESV (=RSV) in this instance in a DE translation like NLT2, which also rides roughshod over the grammatical contrast in the parent text. MT Psalm 1:1-2 stages things in a certain way, and a translation that wishes to adhere to the style of the original insofar as possible will seek to reproduce the staging effects. That’s why translations like my own, that of Alter, and even NJPSV (a moderate DE translation) reproduce the contrast by means of a past tense – present tense sequence in English. Happy is the man, in other words, who in the past and up until now has not done certain things, and in the present and for the foreseeable future does certain other things. That’s what the Hebrew seems to imply by the qatal – yiqtol contrast, but in ESV, the contrast is lost in translation.

(2) As FE (Formal Equivalence) translations tend to do, apparently intelligible but in fact nonsensical phrases in English are given to us in ESV without explanation. The prime example here: “nor sits in the seat of scoffers.” Iyov appears to cotton to the opacity of a translation like this, and gives it a high-sounding description: “resonant obscurity.” Why obscurity becomes acceptable because it is resonant escapes me. (UPDATE: Iyov expatiates on the concept of resonant obscurity, without obscurity, here; as I expect from him, he makes some excellent points)

To be sure, the meaning of the Hebrew of the phrase in question – “sat in the seat of scoffers” - is disputed. In the light of Ezek 28:2; 1 Sam 20:18, 25; and Job 29:7, I read it as explained in footnote [1] to my translation, but other interpreters read it in light of Psalm 107:32, in which case it must mean something like “sit down in the company of scoffers.” For the sake of argument, let’s say one wishes, in cases of semantic uncertainty, to preserve the known alternatives in translation. Sounds nice on paper, but how do you do it? Certainly not by translating “nor sits in the seat of scoffers.” That translation leads nowhere in particular without explanation.

The facts are these. It is often possible to translate Hebraisms “as is,” but then a footnote is necessary if the Hebraism in English is opaque and must be clarified. In a fully annotated JHV, besides explaining that the aforementioned idiom means to sit down in a chair in order to pontificate in one sense or another, I would want to add: Others [with whom I disagree] ‘sit down in the company of scoffers.’

To be continued.

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

When I last translated this psalm here - along with psalms 2 and 149, following the lead of Robert Cole JSOT 98 (2002), I laboured (yech - so many words) to reproduce the singular plural contrasts - the one man (though I translated as one/that one) vs the many wicked and the many righteous - i.e. the saints especially in psalm 149. I think Cole has identified a significant feature of the Psalter in this work. It is in a word both Messianic and redemptive.

[Bob MacDonald]

Oh I messed up that link! here

[Bob MacDonald]

Sorry - it wasn't me - typepad is no longer interpreting links correctly - shows OK in the preview and fails on the publish.

[JohnFH]

Bob,

Thanks for drawing attention to your work and that of Robert Cole. There certainly is a sense in which the Psalter in final form is messianic and redemptive.

Traditional Jewish and Christian exegesis recognize this, each in their own way. The fact is in the process of being "rediscovered" by modern exegetes who have, heretofore, tended to ignore the Psalter understood as an integrated whole.

[John]

John

I can't read a lick of Hebrew, but I enjoy reading your blog. As a result of reading same, a few months back I aquired a Tanakh. The one I have has "teaching" in Joshua 1.8. It has a copyright of 1985 by Jewish Publication Society.

What do I have?

Thanks

John

[JohnFH]

John,

You have a copy of NJPSV. I recommend this translation of the Old Testament, for Jewish and Christian readers alike.

An upgrade to the edition you have is found, for example, in the Jewish Study Bible published by Oxford University Press. The purchase of that volume is money well spent. It gives you a slightly improved NJPSV plus a set of fabulous notes and essays.

[Peter Kirk]

You seem to have missed the significant problem with ESV, which is also in your version, that in English "stands in the way of" is an idiom which has a meaning "hinders", "obstructs" totally different from what is surely intended by the Hebrew. So using this wording in an English translation is highly misleading, not "resonant obscurity" but "resonant mistranslation". This example clearly shows the limitations of the FE translation method.

[JohnFH]

Peter,

I remember now we've gone over this particular example before. As far as I can see, you are guilty of wooden thinking. "Stand in the way" can say what you say it means. But when that meaning obviously doesn't work, as in the host of translations used today which read "stand in the way" in this context, readers adjust.

But don't take my word for it. Field-test ESV (=RSV) Psalm 1:1-2 a little bit, and see what you come up with.

[Peter Kirk]

John, I can agree that in context most people are going to understand ESV correctly. But to do so they will have to work against what the text actually says, much like someone trying to work out the meaning of a sentence from which "not" has been accidentally omitted. Even allowing some leeway in poetry, I don't see that as good translation.

[JohnFH]

ESV, like RSV and also KJV, not to mention NJPSV, REB, and NRSV, are translations that require fuller intellectual engagement to be correctly understood than is the case with NLT2.

That's not what everyone wants, nor is is what everyone can handle.

[Iyov]

As FE (Formal Equivalence) translations tend to do, apparently intelligible but in fact nonsensical phrases in English are given to us in ESV without explanation. The prime example here: “nor sits in the seat of scoffers.” Iyov appears to cotton to the opacity of a translation like this, and gives it a high-sounding description: “resonant obscurity.” Why obscurity becomes acceptable because it is resonant escapes me.

Well, if you had waited for my next post, you would have known what resonant obscurity was.

What a pity that Shakespeare didn't publish his sonnets with detailed notes so we wouldn't have to puzzle over them.

[JohnFH]

Hi Iyov,

Is that post up yet? When it is, I will link to it. Hats off to you if with "resonant obscurity" you have forged an original coherent concept. That's hard to do in the field of lit crit.

It was rather mean of Shakespeare not to provide notes to his sonnets. Generations of students who have struggled with them will attest to that.

E.-S. Edwards writes thusly in a comment to a post of his on this topic re my translation of Psalm 1:1-2, which is even more FE than RSV=ESV Ps 1:1-2:

"I thought your translation was perfectly readable (and understandable) in a modern English sense for someone willing to think in word images."

I have found my ideal reader! Furthermore, the bard of Avon would have had this to say, I imagine:

I thought my sonnet was perfectly readable (and understandable) for someone with a good grasp of English and willing to think in word images.

[Peter Kirk]

Ah well, if we are doing a translation fit for the bard to appreciate, that's a different matter. You and Iyov can have fun trying to live up to that impossible ideal, and the rest of us can get on with translating for ordinary mortals!

[Iyov]

I claim no originality.

[JohnFH]

Good comeback, Peter. But I'll settle for E.-S. Edwards as my ideal reader, and many others like him, though they may not be as numerous as those who will always prefer a translation like NLT2.

[Iyov]

By the way, at some point we'll simply have to discuss the footnotes in Eliot's The Wasteland, Nabakov's Pale Fire, and Koster's The Dissertation. Or, if you prefer to speak of non-fiction works, we can discuss Gibbon.

[JohnFH]

Either Eliot or Gibbon would suit me, since I'm already familiar with their work.

On the other hand, perhaps that's a reason to look at the others. I'm always up for exploring texts I missed in my pot-holed education.