Isaiah 26:3

[Manfred]

I originally posted this in April. I was able to retrieve the original post but without any replies, so I’m posting it again.

---

I am presenting three different versions of Isaiah 26:3. I have never been able to find out which, if any, is closest to what Isaiah wrote. Can anyone offer some insight, please?

• from the Douay:
  The old error is passed away: thou wilt keep peace: peace, because we have hoped in thee.
• from the RSV:
  Thou dost keep him in perfect peace,
  whose mind is stayed on thee,
  because he trusts in thee.
• from the New Jerusalem Bible:
  This is the plan decreed: you will guarantee peace,
  the peace entrusted to you.

And the NAB and the 1966 Jerusalem Bible offer two more variations.

Any insights or comments, please?

Manfred

 

[Liberian]

Manfred,

The JPS Tanakh renders it “The confident mind You guard in safety, / In safety because it trusts in You.” Here is the Hebrew:

yetser – (1) frame, formation, “for he knoweth our frame,” i.e., knows how or whence we have been formed; hence, a thing framed, as earthenware, especilly an idol; (2) metaphorically a meditation, thought, or fully, “a firm mind,” a firm soul, i.e., a man of firm mind
samukh – (1) to place or lay something upon any thing, so that it may rest upon, and be supported by it; (2) to uphold, to sustain, to aid
titsor – you will watch, keep, observe, hide
shalom – peace, wholeness
/
shalom – peace, wholeness
ki – because
b’kha – to or for you (masculine singular)
batuakh – he confides, sets one’s hope or confidence in

There’s more but this is a bit of it.

• Liberian

 

[Manfred]

Manfred,

The JPS Tanakh renders it “The confident mind You guard in safety, / In safety because it trusts in You.” Here is the Hebrew:

yetser – (1) frame, formation, “for he knoweth our frame,” i.e., knows how or whence we have been formed; hence, a thing framed, as earthenware, especilly an idol; (2) metaphorically a meditation, thought, or fully, “a firm mind,” a firm soul, i.e., a man of firm mind
samukh – (1) to place or lay something upon any thing, so that it may rest upon, and be supported by it; (2) to uphold, to sustain, to aid
titsor – you will watch, keep, observe, hide
shalom – peace, wholeness
/
shalom – peace, wholeness
ki – because
b’kha – to or for you (masculine singular)
batuakh – he confides, sets one’s hope or confidence in

There’s more but this is a bit of it.

• Liberian

Oh, good grief; it would seem that all of the English renderings posted are indeed allowed. The possible combinations of meanings are enormous. But I understand this is more of a problem with the Hebrew of the OT than it is with the Greek of the NT. Had I studied Latin in high school, I’d be able to buy a copy of the Nova Vulgata and read it in Latin, end of story; but, alas, I didn’t so I can’t. I can, and do, read the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-CE. Sometimes the one is clearer, sometimes the other.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Manfred

 

[Verbum]

Hi Manfred,

To add to the pool, here’s Young’s Literal Translation :

3 An imagination supported Thou fortifiest peace – peace! For in Thee it is confident

The least we can say about this passage is that it is obscure.

Verbum

 

[Liberian]

Manfred,

RIght you are! This is one reason I cannot believe the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” We need an authoritative interpreter, led by the Holy Spirit, to tell us what the “Scriptura” says, let alone what it means and how it applies.

• Liberian

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Douay translation is close to the Latin text of the verse. The other translations are fairly loose, esp. the NJB.

I prefer a more literal translation.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

The Douay translation is close to the Latin text of the verse. The other translations are fairly loose, esp. the NJB.

I prefer a more literal translation.

Ron

Ron,

As you most certainly know, the Douay is a faithful rendering of the Clementine Vulgate. But the Nova Vulgata is a bit different than the Clementine; to wit,

“Propositum eius est firmum;
servabis pacem,
quia in te speravit.”

Would you mind translating it for me, please?

Manfred

 

[Ron_Conte]

Clementine Vulgate:
Vetus error abiit : servabis pacem ; pacem, quia in te speravimus.
The old error has gone away. You will watch over peace; peace, because we have hoped in you.

Neo Vulgate:
Propositum eius est firmum; servabis pacem, quia in te speravit.
His purpose is firm. You will watch over peace, for he has hoped in you.

I don’t like the Neo Vulgate because I think that the text relies on Hebrew and Greek sources whenever the Latin would offer a variation in the wording. I think that separate Scriptural traditions should be maintained, so that we don’t try to merge all manuscripts into one ‘definitive’ edition.

I should add that with prophetic books, as opposed to narrative books, the context is not always clear, and so the translation can vary.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

Clementine Vulgate:
Vetus error abiit : servabis pacem ; pacem, quia in te speravimus.
The old error has gone away. You will watch over peace; peace, because we have hoped in you.

Neo Vulgate:
Propositum eius est firmum; servabis pacem, quia in te speravit.
His purpose is firm. You will watch over peace, for he has hoped in you.

I don’t like the Neo Vulgate because I think that the text relies on Hebrew and Greek sources whenever the Latin would offer a variation in the wording. I think that separate Scriptural traditions should be maintained, so that we don’t try to merge all manuscripts into one ‘definitive’ edition.

I should add that with prophetic books, as opposed to narrative books, the context is not always clear, and so the translation can vary.

Ron

Ron, thanks so much for your translation!

Any thoughts on why the RSV or the NJB rendered the original (Hebrew, supposedly) the way they each did?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron, thanks so much for your translation!

Any thoughts on why the RSV or the NJB rendered the original (Hebrew, supposedly) the way they each did?

I know that many consider the RSV to be a fairly literal translation, but in my opinion it is a looser translation and takes too many liberties with the text. I think that both the RSV and NJB are translating what they think the text means, rather than what it says. There may also be some textual variations between the Latin and various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

I know that many consider the RSV to be a fairly literal translation, but in my opinion it is a looser translation and takes too many liberties with the text. I think that both the RSV and NJB are translating what they think the text means, rather than what it says. There may also be some textual variations between the Latin and various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Ron

While the RSV may have been a bit “interpretative” with this verse, it was probably so it wouldn’t stray too far from how the KJV rendered it.

NJB’s rendering is definitely out in left field. But it has the original Jerusalem Bible and the NAB for company.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If one looks at almost any older translation, pre-20th century, the translation will generally be much more literal than most translations today. Over time, Bible translations have become looser and looser. Catholic scholars argued against Martin Luther’s translation philosophy because he translated more loosely than his contemporaries. But his approach is more literal than most Catholic versions today.

This trend has to reverse itself, or the Bible will become Bible stories instead of Divine Revelation, and the words of the translators instead of the Word of God.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

This trend has to reverse itself, or the Bible will become Bible stories instead of Divine Revelation, and the words of the translators instead of the Word of God.

Ron, do you actually think the team working on the revision of the NAB OT feels this way? If their revision of the Psalms is any indication, I wouldn’t hold my breath for a reversal of this trend. Consider also the untrustworthy NRSV or the revised Grail Psalter rejected by Rome for liturgical use (too damned gender-inclusive).

 

[Ron_Conte]

The inclusive language in the NRSV was not the work of the translators, but was added later by an ‘editorial’ committee. The translators were upset by these changes.

Is the trend reversing? Well, many Catholics perfer the Challoner revision, because it is more literal than the other modern translations. my own translation that is in progress is fairly literal, though somewhat less literal than Challoner. There is a strong conservative base among Catholics who are very critical of liberal Biblical scholarship.

Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was critical of inclusive language and some of the liberal trends in Bible translation. Cardinal Arinze is also on the conservative end of Biblical scholarship.

Ron