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.
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.
Posted by: Bob MacDonald | August 21, 2008 at 09:18 AM
Oh I messed up that link! here
Posted by: Bob MacDonald | August 21, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Sorry - it wasn't me - typepad is no longer interpreting links correctly - shows OK in the preview and fails on the publish.
Posted by: Bob MacDonald | August 21, 2008 at 09:20 AM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 21, 2008 at 09:26 AM
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
Posted by: John | August 21, 2008 at 09:36 AM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 21, 2008 at 09:49 AM
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.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 21, 2008 at 03:09 PM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 21, 2008 at 03:25 PM
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.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 21, 2008 at 05:20 PM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 21, 2008 at 05:48 PM
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.
Posted by: Iyov | August 22, 2008 at 01:48 AM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 22, 2008 at 08:55 AM
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!
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 22, 2008 at 09:26 AM
I claim no originality.
Posted by: Iyov | August 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Iyov | August 22, 2008 at 11:55 AM
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.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 22, 2008 at 12:45 PM