PROVERBS 12: TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

You may possibly have wondered when studying any of the poetic sections of the Old Testament why there are so many differences in the way various translations render the same verses. It turns out that there are two factors operating in opposite directions which tend to confuse the translators. Working against them is the fact that Hebrew poetry, along with poetic passages in other cultures, tends to use archaic words which are often incomprehensible to later audiences. But countering this negative factor in the case of Hebrew poetry is the fact that it is generally based on the principle that there will be a strong relationship in thought between each line within a given verse. Thus, if line 1 makes no apparent sense, one can go to line 2 to at least get a hint of its meaning. And further complicating the picture is the fact that ancient documents may have undergone accidental altering over the years by generations of scribes.

Proverbs 12 presents numerous specific examples illustrating how these factors play out in practice. Below are some representative examples, but before subjecting you to quotes of a rather technical nature from the literature, there is one piece of information you need to know regarding scholarly nomenclature:

    MT is an abbreviation standing for Masoretic Text, another designation referring to the standard Hebrew text used as the basis for most English translations.

    LXX stands for the Septuagint, the standard Greek translation of the Old Testament completed before New Testament times and adopted for the most part as the standard OT used by many Jews who could not read Hebrew. It is felt that on occasion the translators of the Septuagint may have actually been working off of Hebrew versions that varied from MT and may have even been more accurate than MT.

In general, translators stick with the MT unless they cannot make adequate sense out of the Hebrew text. In that case, they often rely on LXX for its meaning or look for cognate words in other ancient languages instead.

                            Proverbs 12 (collage, 1984)

Proverbs 12:6

“The sense may be either that the upright intervenes and rescues men who are slandered, or that uprightness is the best defense against slander.” (C.G. Martin)

Garrett chooses 12:6 as an example of LXX's tendency “to replace the vivid metaphorical language of the MT.” Thus we have the following comparison for 12:6a:

        “The words of the wicked are for an ambush of blood...” (MT)

        “The words of the wicked are deceitful...” (LXX)

Moving on to the second line of the verse, we read “but the mouth of the upright delivers men.” (RSV)

Waltke says, “Metaphorically, their speech is a bloody ambush, connoting that they have the effect of entrapping and killing unsuspecting innocent and upright citizens. Their words, however, are matched by the decisive salvific words from the mouth of upright people.”

Proverbs 12:9

RSV follows LXX while KJV and RV keep with the Hebrew consonantal text and change the vowels to give the idea that it is preferable to lower your social status but still have enough left to afford a servant than to elevate your status and starve. “The thought is similar” in both renderings. (Walls)

However, Whybray demonstrates how some slight changes in understanding can lead to quite different translations:

        “It is better to be modest (or scorned) and earn one's living,

         than to be conceited (or honored) and go hungry.”

Note how the main translation gives good ethical advice while that in parentheses is of a more pragmatic nature.

Proverbs 12:12

This is a case of a text that has obviously been corrupted over the years of copying. Whybray states, “The first line hardly makes sense in the Hebrew. Martin explains that “RSV takes one emendation ('the strong tower of the wicked comes to ruin') to make a balanced couplet [with 'but the root of the righteous stands firm'].” NIV, however, attempts to make sense of MT as best it can and comes up with: “The wicked desire the stronghold of evildoers, but the root of the righteous endures.”

“Hitzig cleverly emended the text from hmd ('to covet') to hmr ('is crumbling clay'), which is plausible..., offers a good parallel to the [second line], and resolves a logical problem...But since all Hebrew mss and ancient versions read intelligible hmd, the text is best not emended.” (Waltke)

However, Hitzig's solution is adopted by the NEB in their “The stronghold of the wicked crumbles like clay” to which Whybray replies, “The rendering of the N.E.B. is based on a rather drastic emendation of the text.”

Hulst's opinion is that of others: the verse is corrupt in both its lines. However, he suggests a fairly literal translation for the first line: “The wicked desires the hunting net of the evil things.” “This could mean that the wicked person covets the means to effect greater wickedness. His aim is not only to do evil, but also to acquire new methods of doing it. In this translation, mesod is interpreted as the construct state of masod 'hunting net'. Other suggestions are that the word should be read as mesad or mesuda(h) meaning 'inaccessible place' or 'stronghold' (RSV 'strong tower'). The RSV rendering 'comes to ruin', represents a conjectured reading yissamed or something like it, in place of the MT hamad.”

In terms of the equally confusing second line of 12:12, Hulst says it “reads 'and the root of the righteous gives'. No object for the verb is expressed. Some supply the word 'fruit' and translate 'the root of the righteous gives fruit'. Others suggest that instead of the MT yitten 'gives', one should read be'e(y)tan 'in firmness', i.e. in firm ground (cf. Gen 49:24 for the meaning). Hence the RSV renders 'the root of the righteous stands firm'.”

Proverbs 12:14

Scott renders the literal Hebrew wording as “From the fruit of a man's mouth he will be satisfied with good, and the reward of a man's work will be retained to him.” This is fairly close to the RSV understanding of the verse and implies that a man will enjoy the fruit of his labor.

However, NEB takes these two lines as being somewhat in contrast to one another: “One man wins success by his words; another gets his due reward by the work his hands.” This simply indicates that there is more than one way to gain an honest living.

Jerusalem Bible reads the verse as “When a man is filled with good things, it is the fruit of his own words, each man's labour brings its own return.” Here we have a combination of the other two ideas.

TEV: “Your reward depends on what what you say and what you do; you will get what you deserve.” This rendering, on the other hand, could even be taken as an implied threat as well as a promise.

I include this verse to demonstrate that even when the Hebrew text is quite clear, it is still possible to find different nuances in the words.

Proverbs 12:17

The Hebrew words can be translated literally into English as follows: “he who breathes out faithfulness declares righteousness.” (Scott) This is translated in a rather neutral way in RSV, resulting in almost a truism that goes for granted: “He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.” Thus, a rendering such as that in the Anchor Bible is preferable: “One who brings out the facts makes evident his innocence, but a lying witness shows his deceitfulness.” Here a trial setting is assumed.

Proverbs 12:26a

NEB as well as RSV render this line as “A righteous man recoils from evil.” By contrast, the Hebrew text reads “let him spy out his friend.”

“NIV...tries to make sense of the MT 'spy out' (as in Jg. 1:23) which could mean 'look out for' and gives a balanced couplet.” (Martin)

Hulst explains in some detail the reason for such diverse translations: “The form yater is derived from tur 'to search out'...The AV [i.e. KJV] has 'the righteous is more excellent than his neighbor', thus understanding yater as related to the root consonants ytr. The second word in the MT mere'ehu 'from his neighbor', or, 'more than his neighbor' has been taken by the DNV [Dutch New Version] as... from the root consonants...[meaning] 'who wants to harm him', or 'what wants to harm him'. Thus, the DNV has 'the righteous man can tell who wants to harm him', which could also be rendered 'the righteous man considers what would cause him harm' (and thus avoids it). The RSV has expressed this thought more freely 'a righteous man turns away from evil'. A conjecture that has met with some favor is to read mir'ehu 'his meadow'. This involves only a modified vocalization. The sense would be that the righteous man knows how to find the meadow that is suitable for him, i.e. what is good for him.”

Proverbs 12:27

The Hebrew text reads literally “Laziness will not take his prey.” Scott notes: “The verb is otherwise unknown and its meaning must be inferred from the context and the ancient versions.”

In the Hebrew, the second half of the verse reads literally: “But the substance of a precious man is diligent.” KJV and RSV transpose 'precious' and 'diligent' to make more sense out of the line.

Martin explains that “NEB 'puts up no game' and NIV relates the MT to two possible roots (NIV choosing a root translated 'scorch' at Dan. 3:27). RSV follows LXX 'will not catch.' The general sense remains...satisfaction demands effort of some kind.”

Whybray concludes his comments on this difficult verse: “The only thing of which we can be certain is that there is a contrast between the lazy and the industrious man, and that the first line has to do with hunting.”

Proverbs 12:28

This is an important OT verse due to its possible expression of a belief in the afterlife.

In comparing English translations, Waltke says, “The RSV read 'el-mawet ('to death'), but the NRSV returned to 'al-mawet ('without death'), presumably because it found the evidence too compelling. Commentators often reject this interpretation to uphold the modern dogma that there is no afterlife, not for exegetical reasons.”

But, in fact, Hulst does offer good exegetical reasons for siding with the RSV here: “The AV translation 'no death' for 'al mawet is most unlikely, since for this translation one would expect the negative form lo' – not 'al. If one tries to follow the MT no contrast is expressed between the two halves of the verse: the preceding verses, however, indicate that a contrast is present. Thus, instead of netiba(h) 'path', it is preferable to read mesuba 'backsliding, sin', and to vocalize 'al 'not' as 'el 'unto'. Hence the RSV reads 'but the way of error leads to death'. The reading, however, is a conjecture and by no means certain.”

In fact, Hulst's last sentence could be taken as an appropriate comment on all the controversies above.