Biblicalelearning.org



THE

BOOK OF PSALMS

A NEW TRANSLATION

WITH

INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL

By

J. J. STEWART PEROWNE, D. D.

Canon Residentiary of Llandaff

Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge

Hon. Chaplain to the Queen

Late Praelector in Theology and Fellow of Trinity College

VOL. I

PSALMS 1-72

George Bell and Sons in 1878, 4th edition.

Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt: Gordon College 2006

with the help of Kim Spaulding, Apurva Thanju, and Brianne Records

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION

ALTHOUGH the Fourth Edition of this work does not differ

very materially from those that have preceded it, either in

the translation or in the notes, yet in one respect it will

I hope, be found much more complete and accurate. In

preparing it, I have had the advantage of consulting

many original authorities in Talmudical and Rabbinical

literature which before were not within my reach, and I

have consequently been able to correct several errors of

quotation from these sources, some of which have found

their way into many commentaries, one writer having often

merely copied and repeated the blunders of another. And,

further, I have had throughout the valuable assistance of

Dr. Schiller-Szinessy, the learned Reader in Talmudical and

Rabbinical Literature in this University, who is a master

of Jewish lore, and who has most kindly spared no labour

in verifying and correcting my references. Their greater

accuracy is, in a large measure, due to the conscientious

care which he has bestowed upon them, and of which

I am the more sensible, because I know that it has been

viii PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.

bestowed notwithstanding the pressure of other numerous

and heavy engagements. It is a pleasure to me to take

this opportunity of expressing my obligations to him, and

my sense of the ready kindness with which his learning is

always placed at the disposal of others.

CAMBRIDGE,

March 7, 1878.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

IN preparing a Third Edition of this work for the press,

I have availed myself of the following critical aids and

authorities:--

I. Baer's critical text of the Psalter. His preface on the

Metrical Accentuation of the Poetical Books deserves notice.

2. Field's admirable Edition of Origen's Hexapla. I have

corrected by reference to it many quotations which were

given in my former editions on the authority of Montfaucon.

3. Moll's Commentary in Lange's Bibelwerk.

4. The 2nd Edition of Delitzsch's Psalter.

5. The 3rd Edition of Ewald's work on the Psalms.

6. The 2nd Edition of Hitzig's Commentary.

7. Dr. Kay's Psalms with Notes.

8. Professor Conant's Translation.

9. The 2nd Edition of Dr. Phillip's Commentary.

My special thanks are due to R. L. Bensly, Esq., Fellow of

Gonville and Caius College, who has been so kind as to

revise the sheets of the work as it passed through the press;

to his knowledge and accuracy I am greatly indebted.

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

April 22, 1873.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

THE Second Edition of this work will not be found to differ

very materially from the First. I have made a few additions,

more particularly to the Critical Notes in some of the earlier

Psalms; and I have corrected errors wherever I have dis-

covered them, or where they have been pointed out to me

by friends. All the references have been carefully revised.

Many of the apparent mistakes in the references of the First

Edition were due to my having used the Hebrew Bible,

without taking due care to mark where the Hebrew divisions

of chapters or verses varied from the English. Where these

differ, it will now be found, I hope, that both references are

given, those to the Hebrew text being enclosed in square

brackets. If, however, the double reference has still been

omitted in some cases, it may be borne in mind that in all

Psalms which have an inscription, the inscription is reckoned

as a verse (occasionally as two verses) in the Hebrew text,

whereas this is not the case in the English. Consequently

the first verse in the English may be the second or even the

third in the Hebrew, and so on all through. In the Critical

Notes the references are always to the Hebrew text.

xii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

In revising my translation I have approached in several

instances more nearly to the Authorized Version, and I have

more frequently than before left the literal rendering of a

clause for the note, giving the freer and more idiomatic in the

text. In doing this, I have listened to the suggestions of my

critics, some of whom, not agreeing in other respects, have

agreed in censuring my trnaslation. And now as there is at

last some reasonable hope that a revision of our Authorized

Version will be undertaken by competent scholars, this ques-

tion of translation possesses far more than a merely personal

or temporary interest. Even a translator who has failed, if

he has done his work honestly and conscientiously, may be a

beacon, if he cannot be a guide, to those who come after him.

I shal therefore be pardoned perhaps, if I discuss more fully

than I should otherwise have done, some of the points that

have been raised.

The objections that have been brought against me are of

this kind. One of my reviewers observes that, after having

said that I had not “needlessly departed” from our Authorized

Version, I have “judged if needful often enough to give an

entirely new air to my translation.” Another writes: “The

gain which is acquired by the greater accurarcy of the version

by no means compensates for the loss of harmony and

rhythm and sweetness, both of sound and of association.

An English reader could undrestand the Psalms no better,

and he could not enjoy them half so well.” I have been

charged with going directly against “existing standards of

public tastes and feeling,” in following the Hebrew order of

the words, where such order is not the most natural in

English. This is “to undo the work of such men as

Wordsworth and Tennyson.” Again, “In the original, the

paronomasia or alliteration” [to preserve which the structure

of the sentence in English has been made to accomodate

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xiii

itself to the structure in Hebrew] “amounts only to a delicate

hint, which may pass unnoticed except to an observant eye;

in the translation it obtrudes itself as a prominent feature of

the style.” And both critics concur in thinking that I have

myself fallen into the very errors in point of taste which

I have condemned in other translations.

Now I may at once say that to some extent, if not to the

whole extent alleged by the reviewers, I plead guilty to the

indictment. I have carried minute and punctilious accuracy

too far. I have sometimes adhered too closely, without any

adequate and compensating result, to the order of the words

in the Hebrew. It will be an evidence of the sincerity of my

reprentance on this head, that in the present edition I have in

many instnaces corrected both the one fault and the other.

But I cannot concede all that the critics demand of me.

I. In the first place, I did not say, in the preface to my

first edition, that I had not “needlessly departed from our

Authorized Version,” but that I had “not needlessly departed

from the sound English of our Authorized Version;” and

my meaning was evident, because I immediately gave as

instances of departure the use of the verb “to seize” and

of the noun “sympathy.”*

2. In the next place, I feel quite sure that those who lay

so much stress upon “harmony and rhythm and sweetness,”

are thinking more of the Prayer-Book Version of the Psalms,

than of that of King James’s translators. The former is far

more musical, more balanced, and also more paraphrastic

than the latter; and from constantly hearing it read in the

Church Services, we have become so thoroughly habituated

to it that almost any departure from its well-known cadences

* So it ought to have stood: the verb “to sypmpathize” was put by

mistake for the noun “sympathy.” I have only used it once in Ps. lxix.,

and there to express a Hebrew noun which occurs nowhere else.

xiv PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

offends the ear. Indeed our familiarity with this version is

such, that not only would most English Churchmen having

occasion to quote a verse of a Psalm quote it as it stands in

the Prayer-Book, but they would often be very much sur-

prised if they were told that the very sense of the Bible

Version was different. Of the multitude of persons who are

familiar with the phrase, "The iron entered into his soul," how

many are aware that the rendering in our Bible is, “He was

laid in iron” There can be no question as to which is

the more rhythmical and the more expressive; but there can

also be no question that the Authorized Version faithfully

represents the Hebrew, which the other does not. It would

be no difficult task to quote a number of passages from the

Bible Version of the Psalms which fail essentially in rhythm

just because they are faithful to the original.

Take for instance the following (Ps. lviii. 7):—"Let them

melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth

his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces."

Now contrast with this the freer but inaccurate rendering

of the Prayer-Book Version:--"Let them fall away like water

that runneth apace; and when they shoot their arrows, let

them be rooted out."

Again, the Bible version of lix. 19 is:---"God shall hear

and afflict them, even He that abideth of old. Because they

have no changes, therefore they fear not God."

Whereas the Prayer-Book Version (again very inaccurate,

but much smoother) is:—"Yea, even God, that endureth for

ever, shall hear me, and bring them down: for they will not

turn nor fear God."

In the Bible, Ps. lxviii. 19 stands:—"Thou, 0 God, didst

send a plentiful rain, whereby Thou didst confirm Thine

inheritance, when it was weary."

In the Prayer-Book Version it is: “Thou, 0 God, sentest

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xv

a gracious rain upon Thine inheritance, and refreshedst it

when it was weary."

Or compare the two versions in xlix. 7-9, or in cxxx.

1-4, and the same phenomenon presents itself, as it does in

many other instances; the Bible is the more accurate, the

Prayer-Book the more rhythmical version. But if this is the

case, then in estimating a new translation, the object of which

is avowedly to give as exactly as possible the sense of the

original, justice requires that it should be compared with the

language of the Authorized Version, not with that of the

Prayer-Book.

3. Thirdly, I have been censured for adhering too closely to

the form of the Hebrew, both in its idiom and in the structure

of the clauses. Perhaps I have gone too far in this direction.

But before a question of this kind can be decided, it is im-

portant to lay down as clearly as possible to the mind what

it is we aim at in a translation. "There are two maxims of

translation," says Goethe: "the one requires that the author

of a foreign nation be brought to us in such a manner that we

may regard him as our own; the other, on the contrary, de-

mands of us that we transport ourselves over to him, and,

adopt his situation, his mode of speaking, his peculiarities.

The advantages of both are sufficiently known to all in-

structed persons, from masterly examples." Each of these

methods "is good," says Mrs. Austin, the accomplished trans-

lator of Ranke's History of the Popes, "with relation to its ends

—the one when matter alone is to be transferred, the other

when matter and form." And she adds very truly: "The

praise that a translated work might be taken for an original,

is acceptable to the translator only when the original is a work

in which form is unimportant." She instances Pope's Homer

as essentially a failure, because we want to know not only

what Homer said, but how he said it. "A light narrative," she

xvi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

continues, “a scientific exposition, or a plain statement of

facts, which pretends to nothing as a work of art, cannot be

too thoroughly naturalized. Whatever may be thought of the

difficulties in the way of this kind of translation, they are

slight compared with those attending the other kind, as any-

body who carefully studies the masterpieces in this way must

perceive. In the former kind the requisites are two—the

meaning of the author, and a good vernacular style; in the

latter, the translator has, as far as possible, to combine with

these the idiomatic tone of the author—to place him before

the reader with his national and individual peculiarities of

thought and of speech. The more rich, new, and striking these

peculiarities are, the more arduous will the task become; for

there is manifestly a boundary-line, difficult if not impossible

to define, beyond which the most courageously faithful trans-

lator dares not venture, under pain of becoming unreadable.

This must be mainly determined by the plasticity of his lan-

guage, and by the taste of his fellow-countrymen. A German

translator can effect, and may venture, more than an Egnlish;

an English than a French;--and this, not only because his

language is more fulll and pliant, but because Germans have

less nationality, and can endure unusual forms of speech for

the sake of gaining accurate insight into the characteristics of

the literature of other countries.”

It is on these grounds that Mrs. Austin defends her own

“Germanisms” in her translation of Goethe into English.

It is on similar grounds that I would defend “Hebraisms”

in the rendering of the Psalms and the poetical portion

of the Hebrew Scriptures into English. In the poetry of a

people, more than in any other species of literature, form is

of importance. Hence we find Mrs. Austin, whose skill as

a translator has been universally admitted, not shunning

*Characteristics of Goethe, vol. i. pp. xxxv-xxxxvii.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xvii

inversions of language in her translations from Goethe, where

“fidelity” and “literalness” are her object. Thus, for in-

stance, the lines in the Metamorphose der Pflanzen:

“Dich verwirret, Geliebte, die tausendfaltige Mischung,

Dieses Blumengewuhls uber dem Garten umber;”

are rendered by her—

“Thee perplexes, beloved, the thousandfold intermixture

Of this flowery throng, around in the garden.”

And again,

“Blattlos aber und schnell erhebt sich der zartere Stengel,

Und ein Wundergebild zieht den Betrachtenden an,”

is translated—

“Leafless, however, and rapid, up darts the slenderer flower-stalk,

And a wonderful picture attracts the observer’s eye.”

I have in the same way deliberately preferred, where the

English idiom did not absolutely forbid it, to retain the order

of the words in the Hebrew, because I felt that in sacrificing

the form, I should be inflicting a loss upon the reader. How-

ever, as I said, in revising my work I have somewhat

modified my practice in this respect, and have contented

myself on several occasions with putting the more literal

rendering in a note.

4. Besides being guilty of too great “punctiliousness” and

“inelegance,” where idiom and harmony are concerned, I

have sinned, according to one of my reviewers,* in the intro-

duction of the word “Jehovah” instead of “the Lord,” which

has for centuries been its customary equivalent. The change,

he says, would be perfectly legitimate, if I were professing to

make everything give way to verbal exactness. But as I

allow other considerations to come in, he thinks that the

perpetual recurrence of the Hebrew form of the word is in

the highest degree strange and unpleasant. “As the name

*Saturday Review, July 2, 1864.

xviii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

had fallen out of use in the Jewish Church, and never became

current in the Christian, our old translators did well to prefer

the idea to the name; and the attempt to bring back the

name seems now to force into prominence its local and

national character, where everything calls for a word which

has nothing local or national about it." In reply to these

objections, it might be almost sufficient to observe that in

retaining the Hebrew name I have only followed the example

of every modern translator of eminence. But of course it is

still a question for consideration, whether there are sufficient

grounds for the change. I think there are very cogent

grounds, which the reviewer in his dislike of novelty, or his

dislike of Puritanism, has entirely overlooked, (I) In the

first place, our translators in their use of the word "Lord"

make no distinction between two names, "Jehovah and

"Adonai," perfectly distinct in Hebrew, and conveying

different conceptions of God. (2) In the next place, it is

well known that whole Psalms are characterized, just as

sections of the Pentateuch are characterized, by peculiar

names of God, and it is surely of some importance to retain as

far as possible these characteristic features, especially when

critical discussions have made them prominent, and questions

of age and authorship have turned upon them. (3) What the

reviewer regards as a disagreeable innovation, has been held

by very good authorities to be a desirable emendation in our

Authorized Version. "Why continue the translation of the

Hebrew into English," says Coleridge, "at second hand,

through the medium of the Septuagint? Have we not

adopted the Hebrew word Jehovah? Is not the Kur an interrogative in Greek.

To return, however, to Horsley's explanation, what meaning

after all does it convey? What sense is there in saying,

"Heal my soul, for I bear the blame before Thee. Heal

my soul, for I am not a sinner, but only in the character

of a sinner"? Such interpretations introduce the idea

* ]All ] i!na h[ grafh> plhrwq^?, o[ trwn a@rton e]p^?ren e]p ]

e]me> th>n ptej tou? a]nqrw de> katestaj u[p ] au]tou? . . .

diaggelw?n to> pro th?j swthri

prodire meum, i.e. auctor proditus mei ex utero, per metonymiam effectus,"

&c. But such a metonymy is harsh and grammatically unnecessary.

d yrxk. There is scarcely any passage of the Old Testament, the true

reading and interpretation of which have given rise to so much discussion.

The grounds for a critical conclusion are furnished, first, by the MSS;

and secondly, by the Ancient Versions.

I. The MSS., almost without exception, have (I) the present Massoretic

reading, i.e. either yrixEKA or yrixEKa, "like a lion." The Targ. in the Antwerp

Polyglot has ylgrv ydyx Nytkn with a various reading, "post Nytkn add. in

aliis hyrxk jyh (or hyrx jyh)," and with this addition it is found in

Walton's Polyglot. (2) In only two genuine Jewish MSS. do we find

vrxk. But in one of these (Kenn. 39) it would seem that the y has

been altered by a later hand into v, and the other (De-Rossi, 337) has

vrxk, a union of both readings. Jacob Ben Chayyim, however, in the

Massora finalis, says that he had found vrxk as the K'thîbh, and yrxk as

the Q'ri in good MSS., and this is supported by the Massora Magna on

PSALM XXII. 247

Numb. xxiv. 9. (3) For vrk there is still less to be said. It is only found

in three late MSS., and in two of these on the margin; and is generally

attributed to Christians, as it is by Joseph and David Qimchi. In the

Bereshith Rabba of R. Moses Hadarshan, however, if we are to credit

R. Martini (Pug. Fid. fol. 244), it is ascribed to the Tikkun Sophiherim.

II. On the other hand, the Ancient Versions are all in favour of a verb,

though they attach to it different significations: (I) "They pierced,

bored through” (the root rxk being regarded as a cognate form of rvk

and hrk). So the LXX. w@rucan, Syr. , Arab. , Vulg. foderunt.

(2) "They bound." So Aq. in his 2d edition, e]pej a]nomi curo>n h]k. e]poi pren Bo ga>r a]peiqou?ntej tou?

kataskhnw?sai.

o -smAfEya. This verb (like xWn and lbs) seems to combine the two

meanings, (i) to put a burden upon another, and (2) to bear a burden. In

the former sense it is always construed with lfa. Of those who adopt (a),

some, as Calv., and the E. V., take it in a good sense, "who daily loadeth

us (with benefits);" others, as L. de Dieu, De W., Reuss, make UnlA-smAfEya the

protasis to what follows, "If any lay a burden upon us, (still) God is,"

&c.; others, again, as Gei., take lxehA as the subject, "He who lays (or

laid) a burden upon us is the God who is also our salvation," i.e. this

burden was a discipline and so a means of blessing. But these con-

structions are harsh, and (2) seems preferable. Comp. Is. xlvi. 1, 3,

Zech. xii. 3. Then UnlA either stands here (according to later usage) for

the accus., as Hupf. takes it, "schleppt uns" (and so Jerome, portavit

nos); or, which is better, retains its proper force as a dat. commodi,.

"Who beareth for us (our burden)." So Ew. and Del., and De Wette

says of this rendering, "besser vielleicht."

p tOxcAOT tv,mAla, lit. "means of escape for death," or with reference to

i.e. against or from death." So Ew. explains, " God gives to Israel the

means to escape from death." Similarly De W., "Vona Tode Rettung;"

Zunz, "Ausgänge vom Tode." And the E. V., "issues from death."

(2) Others, "goings forth to death," i.e. God has means of leading the

enemy to death. So Symm. ai[ ei]j qa ei]j ton tou? sw?sai< me. The insertion of kai< does not prove that they read

zOfmvA (as Davidson); they took rUc as a proper name of God, and zOfmA as a

distinct word. The words tAyUici dymitA xOblA look, as Hupf. remarks, as if they

were formed out of the fragments of tOdUcm; tybel; in xxxi. 3, and tAyUici seems

to have been put in to form a support for the following ynifeywiOhl;.

b yziOG instead of yHiGo, in xxii. 10. This has been rendered, "Thou who

bringest me forth," as if it were the participle transitive of zvg; but the

form in o is usually intransitive, though this is not always the case. See

on xxii. note c. (In xc. 10 zGA is probably the preterite, not the participle.)

Hence others, as Hengst., would take the form here, as well as in xxii.

io, as infin., "my bringing forth," i.e. the agent in bringing me forth.

And so Maur. "transire meum, i.e. ejus auctor per metonym." But

perhaps it is better, following Schult., Animadv. Phil., to derive the word

from a root hzg (cognate with the Arab. retribuere), signifying to

distribute, to requite, to reward. Hence haz,Go would mean literally, one who

dispenses, tami ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download