The Book of Psalms
Analysis
Analysis
BOOK I
Section 1: Saturday Vespers
Division 1:1
... in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen. Through the prayers of our
holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen. Glory
to You, our God, Glory to You.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy
Immortal, have mercy on us (three times).
Glory be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it is now, was in the
beginning, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit us and heal our infirmities
for Your Name’s sake. Lord have mercy (three times).
Psalm
1 Vulgata Translation
Blessed is the man who has not walked in
the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the
chair of pestilence. But, his will[1] is in the
law of the Lord, and on His law he shall[2] meditate
day and night. And he shall be like a
tree which is planted near the running[3] waters,
which shall bring forth its fruit in due season. And his leaf shall not fall off[4]: and all
whatsoever he shall do shall prosper.
Not so the wicked, not so:[5] but like
the dust,[6] which the wind drives from the face of the earth.[7] Therefore the wicked shall not rise again[8] in [the]
judgment: nor sinners in the council of the just. For the Lord knows the way of the just: and
the way of the wicked shall perish.
Psalm 1 Vulgata
Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio
impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra pestilentiae non
sedit. Sed in lege Domini voluntas eius
et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte.
Et erit tamquam lignum quod plantatum est secus decursus aquarum quod
fructum suum dabit in tempore suo et folium eius non defluet et omnia
quaecumque faciet prosperabuntur.
Non sic impii non sic; sed tamquam pulvis
quem proicit ventus a facie terrae; ideo non resurgent impii in iudicio neque
peccatores in consilio iustorum. Quoniam
novit Dominus viam iustorum et iter impiorum peribit.[9]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%201&version=VULGATE
[1]
The difference between delight and will is more apparent than real. Whatever the heart wills, it dotes upon, and
thus delights in. The difference between
Hebrew and Latin seems idiomatic, and delight seems well within the scope of
the nuances of voluntas.
The strong desire to love does not necessarily indicate the ability to
achieve.
[2]
The difference between declaratives and futures, shall and will, is not
compelling. The presence of these may be
necessary for Latin idiom, but do not seem to be constructive emphases in
English. Because they add little or
nothing, they are ignored; in fact they may detract by blunting the force of
shall or will when these are grammatically necessary.
[3]
The difference between streams or rivers and running is more apparent than
real.
[4]
Again, the difference between wither or wilt and fall off is not striking. The picture of a well-watered tree in
juxtaposition to an unwatered tree is clear enough. Deprived of water, the tree is designed to
protect its life: the leaves, wilt, wither, die, shed; the tree sends all
available moisture to its roots; the branches die; finally, the tree dies
also. The word picture is ominous,
frightening, threatening. However, it is
the same picture in Hebrew or Latin.
[5] It
is nothing like this with the wicked, nothing like this! JB The
reduplication may be a necessity of Latin grammar for the sensible formation of
the construction, not only ... but also.
However, this reduplication is the first major difference
between J p-H and MT; it adds an emphasis and force that would otherwise be
missed. Later we will observe that this
difference is consistent with LXX. This
seems to indicate that something is lost in MT; this could be as subtle as a
difference of inflection. However, as
subtle as inflection is, its change can reverse the complete meaning of a
phrase. We must give preference to
Jerome in this matter. We are not free
to allow MT to remove the force of Divine authority by subtlety. Jesus teaches with authority; the scribes do
not.
[6]
The difference between chaff and dust is non-existent. The Hebrew idea is not limited by the English
chaff. Rather, the idea is that of a
byproduct, spun off by violent churning or stirring. Chaff and dust cannot be distinguished.
[7]
Here is the second major difference between J p-H and MT. The change from “from the
face of the earth” to “away” removes the sense of utter damnation and
eternality provided by Jerome. We should
listen to Jerome.
[8]
This is the third major difference between J p-H and MT. MT blunts or denies the force of
resurrection. This force is inescapable
from the light of the NT, especially when Jesus unveils Himself in the OT (Luke
24: 27, 44-48). We may not allow the
removal of Jesus’ interpretation to be blunted, removed, or softened by MT.
[9]
There is very little in Jerome to suggest a great difference between Jerome’s
proto-Hebrew (J p-H) and MT. The
differences may simply indicate interpretive ideas: namely, that Jerome had,
either a better understanding of the force of Hebrew idiom, or a better grasp
of the NT implications and weight of the Psalm.
In either case, Jerome’s variations, though minor, must be taken
seriously. Jerome is standing closer to
Jesus than MT; he speaks from a distinctly Christian worldview; consequently,
his text is closer to the heart of Scripture.
[10] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations in
Psalms, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.
These meditations are not controlled by
Creative Commons or other licenses, such as: copyright, CC, BY, SA, NC, or ND. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment