UNDERSTANDING
THE BIBLE – MISTRANSLATIONS
Psalm 29
and others
Translating
a text into another language is always a challenge. One must get the exact meaning of words
correct, try to communicate the cadence or poetic quality of the origin where
possible, and adjust for differences of language grammar, syntax and idiom,
including gender (Hebrew makes all nouns
male or female; no neutral “it” as in English.)
In a number
of previous blogs I have been critical of the standard ‘simplified’ translation
of recurring vav hahefuch verbs throughout the Tanach and suggested a more
appropriate approach in blogs on Psalm 34, Psalm 30 and Psalm 19, and on Deuteronomy’s
“arami oved avi” passage (Deuteronomy Ch 26: 3 – 10).
But it is one thing for translations to merely translate vav hahefuch
future verbs into past tense, or vav hahefuch past tense verbs into future
tense, without noting the unique intent behind usage of this Divine verb form
(as discussed in blogs on Psalms 34, 30 and 19), but it is another thing to
change the tense of normal verbs in the Hebrew Scriptures to create
‘consistency’ in verb tense or a perceived ‘intent’ other than that of the
original Hebrew.
When a
translation or tradition-of-translation plays fast and loose with an easily
translatable part, a problem exists.
This is a recurring
concern re: English translations by Jewish publishers: for example, Psalm 18 and its original version, 2 Samuel 22, and Psalm 29 as translated by the
Art Scroll Chumash haftorah of 2 Samuel 22; and Psalm 18 and Psalm 29
translations in the printed Art Scroll siddur, Philip Birnbaum siddur, Soncino’s The Psalms (1945) and online mechon-mamre.org
translations (which uses the Soncino English).
All of these
translations play fast
and loose with verb
tense: regularly converting Hebrew verbs that are obvious future
tense into present or past.
If such changes were based on a tradition of kree v’kteev –
where the Biblical text has one spelling but Mesoretic tradition as recorded in
the early Medieval Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex suggest, on grammatical
grounds, a word should be read as if spelled somewhat differently -- that would
be one thing, but for the numerous alterations I will highlight below, there is no such
evidence or justification.
Psalm
29
Psalm 29,
which is part of the Friday night Kabbalat Shabbat services, and is far
shorter than Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22, will be used to illustrate the point.
Below are
juxtaposed the original Hebrew text, the typical Jewish translation of mechon-mamre.org.,
the standard King James English Bible (1611C.E.) version, and
the original Latin Vulgate (Clementine) text - which was translated
directly from the Hebrew by Jerome (405 C.E.).
I have
highlighted the verbs and their tenses in the original Hebrew and in the
translations using the following colour coding:
*Past tense
|
*
Present tense
|
*
Future tense
|
* Imperative
|
* participle
|
|||
* Hebrew
does not have Present tense words for “IS” and “ARE”. They are marked by yellow and Bold Italics in
the translations.
|
|||
Psalms Chapter 29 תְּהִלִּים
1 A Psalm
of David. Ascribe unto the
LORD, O ye sons of might, ascribe unto the LORD glory and strength.
|
|
2 Ascribe unto the LORD the glory due unto His
name; worship the LORD
in the beauty of holiness.
|
|
3 The voice
of the LORD is
upon the waters; {N}
the God of glory thundereth, even the LORD upon many waters. |
|
4 The voice
of the LORD is
powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.
|
|
5 The voice
of the LORD breaketh
the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh
in pieces the cedars of Lebanon.
|
|
6 He maketh them also to
skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild-ox.
|
|
7 The voice
of the LORD heweth out
flames of fire.
|
|
8 The voice
of the LORD shaketh
the wilderness; the LORD shaketh
the wilderness of Kadesh.
|
|
9 The voice
of the LORD maketh
the hinds to calve, and strippeth
the forests bare; {N}
and in His temple all say: 'Glory.' |
|
10 The LORD sat enthroned at the flood;
yea, the LORD sitteth
as King for ever.
|
|
11 The LORD will give strength unto
His people; the LORD will
bless his people with peace. {P}
|
As can been seen from the highlighting, the typical, Jewish mechon-mamre.org
translation makes all the undeniably FUTURE tense Hebrew verbs in verse
3 through verse 10 into PRESENT TENSE –
all seven (7) of them.
It also transforms the past tense הִרְעִים of verse 3
into the present tense as well.
Only at the end, the blessing of verse 11, is the actual, future tense
of the Hebrew kept.
3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.
__________
To what degree the King
James Version has influenced Jewish translators I do not know, but more than 400 years
ago the King James converted all the future verbs in verses 3 through 10
into present tense.
The only difference between
it and the Jewish translations is the latters'
recognition that verse 10 refers to the one-time Noah’s flood – and therefore Jewish translations correctly use
the Hebrew’s past tense, whereas King James uses the present -- as if referring
to any and all floods.
Latin Vulgate (Clementine) Psalm 28
(Hebrew Psalms 9-10 are treated as one in the Vulgate count.)
[from
http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/21028.htm]
[1] Psalmus David, in consummatione tabernaculi. Afferte Domino, filii Dei, afferte Domino, filios arietum. [2] Afferte Domino gloriam et honorem; afferte Domino gloriam nomini ejus; adorate Dominum in atrio sancto ejus. [3] Vox Domini super aquas; Deus majestatis intonuit; Dominus super aquas multas. [4] Vox Domini in virtute; vox Domini in magnificentia. [5] Vox Domini confringentis cedros, et confringet Dominus cedros Libani;
[6] et comminuet eas tamquam vitulum Libani: et dilectus quemadmodum filius unicornium. [7] Vox Domini intercidentis flammam ignis. [8] Vox Domini concutientis desertum et commovebit Dominus desertum Cades. [9] Vox Domini praeparantis cervos, et revelabit condensa; et in templo ejus omnes
dicent gloriam. [10] Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit, et sedebit Dominus rex in
aeternum. Dominus virtutem populo suo dabit; Dominus benedicet populo suo in pace.
****
Latin verb tenses can be checked using Wiktionary ****
This Latin
text, over 1600 years old and long the official, authorized Catholic version,
is remarkably faithful to the verb tense choices of King David’s
original Hebrew.
Yes, there
are extra lines at the start and different interpretations of various words, but
the text rarely differs in verb tense, and most often the difference is in
using a present participle for a present full verb. Only 4 times is there any
time discrepancy over the course of 18 Hebrew verbs.
And, in
fact, it follows the Hebrew so closely that it does NOT insert
the normal Latin “est”, present tense “is”, in the four (4) times it is left
IMPLIED in the Hebrew.
|
verse
|
Hebrew
|
Vulgate
|
|
5
|
שֹׁבֵר present main verb
|
Confringentis present participle
|
|
6
|
No verb – implied only
|
dilectus perfect passive participle
|
|
7
|
חֹצֵב present main verb
|
intercidentis present participle
|
|
8
|
יָחִיל = future
|
concutientis present participle
|
|
9
|
יְחוֹלֵל
= future
|
praeparantis present
participle
|
|
9
|
אֹמֵר = present
|
dicent = future
|
|
10
|
יָשָׁב = past
|
facit = present
|
Why it matters?
As said at
the outset, translating any text is a challenge, but it is the primary duty of
the translator to be as faithful to the original text as possible, and
altering or ‘simplifying’ verb tenses for ‘consistency’ or some other reason is
a total disregard for the original author’s conscious choices, his (or
her) sense of Hebrew poetics, and is a disservice to the reader.
Put simply,
those who can only read Bible texts in such translations are missing out.
Lost in
Mistranslation
- David’s intent here and elsewhere
Below is a
detailed examination of King David’s Hebrew verb tense choices and their stylistic
and also devotional/theological importance.
Verse 3’s הִרְעִים – past tense,”
thundered” – may be a reference to a particular event such as Noah’s flood,
as implied in the Hebrew translations of יָשָׁב – past tense, “sat” - in verse 10. After all, these are the only two times in
the entire poem the past tense is used.
More importantly, David’s text: starting with verse 5 onward, jumps
between tenses in a clear pattern.
The changes are not random but more like the melody of a song with its rises
and dips. As he repeats and paraphrases the
same idea, the text moves usually from the present tense (once) to the future
tense (twice or more).
Thus, קוֹל
יְהוָה,“The voice of the Eternal” , opens
every part of the middle section of the poem,
just like הָבוּ לַיהוָה “Give to the Eternal” begins each part of the
introduction, and יְהוָה ”The
Eternal” begins the two verses of the closing.
The middle section, קוֹל
יְהוָה , builds
from very terse, staccato-like pieces in verses 3 and 4 into more elaborate
descriptions of praise in verse 5 through 9.
Verses 3 and 4, in a mere 17 words, contain a remarkable five (5) separate
quick praises – all except for one being verb-less (i.e., implied
“is” ) and thereby making the connection between קוֹל
יְהוָה ָand the
descriptor more immediate and more intense.
Thereafter, verse 5 begins with the present tense שֹׁבֵר
and follows
up with two more descriptions using future tense וַיְשַׁבֵּר and וַיַּרְקִידֵם.
Then it drops to the present חֹצֵב and then rapidly rises again and again using four
(4) back to back and alliterative future tense verbs יָחִיל,
יָחִיל , יְחוֹלֵל, וַיֶּחֱשֹׂף before returning to earth, so to speak,
with a final present tense אֹמֵר.
The ode concludes in verses 10 and 11 with the same playfulness, this
time starting with the single PAST tense
יָשָׁב and quickly
rushing into the future three (3) times: וַיֵּשֶׁב, יִתֵּן,יְבָרֵך.
Devotional and Theological aspect
Throughout this poem, only the proper, 4-letter (Tetragrammaton)
name for God is used: יְהוָה, which is a
conflation of the Hebrew verb “to be” in its past, present and future forms –
and should, therefore, be translated as The Eternal.
By repeatedly shifting from the now or the past into mostly future tense
verbs, King David seems to me to be emphasizing and reaffirming his faith in God eternal, and His power over nature (verses 3-9) and
human affairs (verses 10-11): past, present and especially future.
Conclusion
It is a pity that only those familiar with Hebrew have the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy King David’s poetic Psalm
29 in all its glory and devotion –
and Psalm 19/2 Samuel 22 and other Scriptures as well.
The tradition of ‘mistranslation’ in English: whether by Jewish publishers or Christian ones, is a
disservice to all.
Only the original Clementine Vulgate is close – though not the modernized
version - but I cannot recommend it or
its accurate English translation below because of the differences in word
‘understandings’ and textual additions compared to our received Hebrew.
In short, we need to either be fluent in Hebrew or get new, better
Jewish English translations.
Below is a full Vulgate
(Clementine) translation showing slightly diverse manuscript textual versions from
http://vulgate.org/ot/psalms_28.htm
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
