Blind Comparison: Psalm 70:3 November 20, 2008
Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Translation & Linguistics.Tags: aha!, blind translations, Hebrew, message, Psalm, Psalm 70, psalms, translations
trackback
Ok, so I balked at the ‘Aha, aha!’ in the singing of Psalm 70 in the liturgy last Sunday, and went looking for an alternative translation:
May those who say to me, “Aha! Aha!” turn back because of their shame.
Let those be turned back because of their shame who say, “Aha, aha!”
Let them turn back because of their shame who say, “Aha, Aha!”
May those who say to me, “Aha! Aha!” turn back because of their shame.
Let them be turned back for a reward of their shame that say, Aha, aha.
Let those who say, “Aha, aha!” retreat because of their shame.
Surprisingly, there are none! The only translation I can find with an alternative is the Message, which is totally random:
Those who are out to get me – let them fall all over themselves. Those who relish my downfall – send them down a blind alley. Give them a taste of their own medicine, those gossips off clucking their tongues. (2-3)
That said, the rest of the verse has a surprising amount of variation in the translation of the verb – ‘may they turn their back’ ‘be turned back’, ‘let them turn back’, ‘turn back’, ‘for a reward’ and ‘retreat’. I don’t know Hebrew from Uzbek, to be honest, but I want to ask opinions on two things:
Firstly, what is translated ‘Aha!’, that there is no alternative, even in relatively dynamic translations?
Secondly, Why the variation in the verb translation? Which do you think is most accurate?
As well as, of course, if you recognise any translations, if you favour any, and why. I’m also curious about your opinion on the Message.
[...] Blind Comparison: Psalm 70:3 Ok, so I balked at the ‘Aha, aha!’ in the singing of Psalm 70 in the liturgy last Sunday, and went looking for an alternative translation [snip] Surprisingly, there are none! The only translation I can find with an alternative is the Message, which is totally random [...]
I was going to leave a lengthy comment, however I have opted to respond with a post of my own. If you read it you will see why!
Response regarding Psalm 70:3
Hi, Damian. I posted this on Nathan’s post as well:
Quick comment on the LXX here. The Greek is unambiguous in meaning. It’s εὖγε, glossed in BAGD as “well done! excellent!” The Hebrew, it seems, uses an expressive word pronounced not at all unlike our “Aha!”, “Ha!” or, given the Greek calque, “Yessss!!!”
Thanks for spending so much time on this Nathan (if you want to know what translations these were, I’ve posted them on Nathan’s site as a comment!)
You’ve come up with three alternatives: ‘Good’, ‘Hurrah’, ‘We told you so!’. However, from what you say (I haven’t studied Hebrew – I really should), it seems that the first two don’t have any basis, and the third seems to be a transference of the Hebrew onomatopoeia into the English understanding of the same sound. Does anyone know the Hebrew better than we?
Steve – thanks for the update on the LXX. Although, I have to say I don’t understand ‘Well done!’ or ‘Excellent’ in the context of the psalm at all. It seems to me that the word should be one of derision, not one of praise?
I’ve cross-posted this comment at Nathan’s blog.
Good grab on the onomatopoeia. BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs) agrees with you. Further, it labels האח an interjection introduced by אמר. BDB is clear to point out that it is an expression of joy and often of “satisfaction over the misfortune of an enemy or rival.” Metaphorically, it evokes the neighing of a war horse.
Holladay’s summary of Koehler and Baumgartner (I don’t have a Koehler and Baumgartner) describes it as an expression “of malicious joy” and argues that it’s more than simply neighing of a war horse but rather the neighing of a horse that is eager and looking for battle.
So, as for “aha,” I’m tempted to stick with “aha aha” since it is repeated in the text. If we verbalize it (“excellent” for example), then we lose the more visceral qualities of this expression of malicious joy. Short version: some things don’t translate well–look up הנה, for example.
It looks to me (on my first gloss of the verb) that it’s a third-person plural imperative. So you see “let them be” before the verb because that’s the way english deals with 3P imperatives. Of course, you also see “be turned” because of the imperative nature. The verb is שוב. It means, roughly, turn. It’s also the word used for repentance. It has the connotation of turning away or back.
It goes on to say something like “to for compensation of their shame.” The word that is being translated “reward” has the connotation of finality in compensation–a last paycheck might be an appropriate image of the word. It can be, and often is, translated “on account of.” The word “shame” means almost definitely just that.
So, my translation?
“Let those who say ‘aha aha’ be turned away because of their shame.”
Wow, thanks, Josh! That’s exactly what I was after.
It’s interesting different approaches to translating the untranslatable. To me, ‘Aha!’ is an expression of discovery, rather than an expression (onomatopoeic or not) or malicious joy. So to me ‘aha, aha’, just doesn’t express the original intent. And, I suspect, to others. This is the problem with socialising with linguists – they seem to convince themselves that everything is English.
It sounds to me like if we were going to avoid verbalising, rather than trying to translate into words, a b-move style ‘evil laugh’ might be more aligned with the original: ‘Muhahahahaha’, but still, not perfect.
I guess given the nature of the Hebrew, the most successful translation might be dynamic: “Let those who are satisfied by your loss be turned away by shame.”, or, if I wanted to capture the imperative better, “Turn away those who are satisfied by your loss because of their shame.” (as the psalm is divinely directed, I see no problem translating this imperatively and not passively).
I appreciate the time you put into answering me, Josh.
The major problem with “Turn away those who are satisfied by your loss because of their shame” is that it shifts the verb into a 2p imperative when it is 3p imperative.
Thanks for reading.
True, Josh. But as you said earlier, English doesn’t cope well with 3p imperative. I prefer it to the alternative, which would be ‘Let those who are satisfied by your loss turn away because of their shame.’ It seems ungainly; doesn’t actually communicate any more in English than the other.