THE BOOK OF PSALMS AND ITS VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS
I'm very disappointed. Recently, after not having seen one for many years, I received a copy of Liber Psalmorum cum Canticis Breviarii Romani. It is the 1944-45 translation of the Psalms by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, ordered by Pius XII.
I expected a lot of it, because I agree with its announced premise: that the best text of the Psalms is the Hebrew text that underlies the Septuagint. Unfortunately, that Hebrew text no longer exists, and they have supposedly tried to reconstruct it. I cannot speak to their methods, but I'd like to say a few things about the results.
One expects a lot from a group calling itself the Pontifical Biblical Institute, so this translation has been very influential. In fact, the Book of Psalms in every Catholic translation of the Bible since the Second World War has been based on it. Due, I suppose, to the soundness of its basic premise, it has also strongly influenced modern Protestant translations, such as the NRSV and the NIV. All of this is extremely unfortunate.
This Liber Psalmorum, or New Latin Psalter (I'll refer to it as NLP from here on) has so far failed every test to which I have put it.
Recently I've noticed that modern translations of the Book of Psalms are tendentious in that they water down the original, strong language of the Psalms. The effect of this is to make the Psalms less of an indictment of the human social order, and to make them less embarrassing and threatening both to the civil governments of the world and to the institutional Church. I'll give some examples.
In Psalm 5, v. 12, the Vulgate has the phrase "et habitabis in eis," "and you will live in them." The verb used in the Septuagint (LXX) is "kataskEnaO," which means "to take up one's quarters, to pitch a tent, to encamp." But the NLP and its followers have "and protect them," certainly a less intimate relationship.
In Psalm 8, v. 5, the Vulgate, accurately reflecting the LXX, which is our rock, our compass, has the phrase "aut filius hominis, quoniam visitas eum," "or the son of man, that you visit him." But the NLP and its followers have "that you care for him." Now that Greek word has both of those meanings, so both interpretations are possible. But the Vulgate translated the word literally, suggesting a more intimate and direct relationship with God, something the institutional Church has always found threatening. By itself, I wouldn't say much about it, but it is part of an unfortunate pattern. The Hebrew word, by the way, doesn't have that ambiguity: it simply means "to visit."
I should take a little detour here, and say something about our beloved King James Version, of 1608. It contains, in my opinion, the last honest translation of the Book of Psalms. Where it differs from the Vulgate and the LXX, it is usually because something (often a whole verse) is missing from the Masoretic Hebrew, upon which it is based. For example, it leaves out the "NUN" verse that should be in Psalm 145, an alphabetic acrostic. But the omission had no agenda; it simply reflected the poor state of the Masoretic text.
Another example of the watering-down process is seen in Psalm 9b (10), where the Greek and (St. Jerome's) Latin tell us that while the impious man fills himself with pride, the poor man "goes up in flames." But according to the NLP, the poor man "is vexed." The Hebrew word in the Masoretic text means "to burn."
Our last example, for present purposes, comes from Psalm 11 (Vulg. and LXX)/Psalm 12 (Hebrew and KJV), where we find (in the Vulgate, which is basically a faithful reflection of the LXX) the phrase "Propter miseriam inopum, et gemitum pauperum. . ." This can be translated as "Because of the misery of the needy and the groans of the poor. . . " The LXX has "Because of the misery of beggars and the groaning of the poor. . . " But in the NLP, the "misery of beggars" becomes "the affliction of the lowly" (afflictionem humilium).
Yes, let's forget that there are beggars, and let's reduce their "misery" to "affliction," which makes it all more abstract. Let's not offend the governments of the world, or the billionaires who own and control them.
In Florida and some other states, it is now illegal to feed the homeless or their children, and those who try to do it are arrested. To feed them is, of course, to notice them, and to admit that they exist.
All of this does not just "vex" me; it burns me up.
© 2011-2015 by Donald C. Traxler
