Bible versions

[Cappadocious]

Have they fixed Psalm 51 in the nrsv yet?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Have they fixed Psalm 51 in the nrsv yet?

Capp, you so often manage to mention issues I am unaware of. I must thank you though, since I'd never know to ask.

So what's wrong with Psalm 51?

 

[Cappadocious]

Capp, you so often manage to mention issues I am unaware of. I must thank you though, since I'd never know to ask.

So what's wrong with Psalm 51?

RSV:

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,
and done that which is evil in thy sight,
so that thou art justified in thy sentence
and blameless in thy judgment.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NRSV:

Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are justified in your sentence
and blameless when you pass judgment.
Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me.

 

[Korah]

My ideal would be NRSV with less ham-handed gender-neutral wording.

NRSV derives from the RSV, so the 1971 2nd Edition should suit you.
The NASB (New American Standard Bible) itself is basically the RSV revised (conservatively).
And the ESV (English Standard Version) is the RSV rendered more consistent by the use of the same English translation consistently. Won't one of these three work for you?
I have also seen in Presbyterian churches the NIV, but it's quite different from the NSRV.

 

[~Anastasia~]

RSV:

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,
and done that which is evil in thy sight,
so that thou art justified in thy sentence
and blameless in thy judgment.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NRSV:

Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are justified in your sentence
and blameless when you pass judgment.
Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me.

Ah, I see. Thank you very much.

I feel like I REALLY should have caught that. I did read the chapter online, but I guess my mind "corrects" everything to match the version I'm familiar with in the prayer book.

 

[hedrick]

Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me.

All 4 commentaries I consulted, including Calvin, believe that this is the sense.

"He now proceeds further than the mere acknowledgment of one or of many sins, confessing that he brought nothing but sin with him into the world, and that his nature was entirely depraved.
...
David does not charge it upon his parents, nor trace his crime to them, but sits himself before the Divine tribunal, confesses that he was formed in sin, and that he was a transgressor ere he saw the light of this world."

I believe the RSV actually says the same thing, but the language is ambiguous enough to permit a different interpretation. The NRSV clarified it.

 

[Cappadocious]

Is an account given?

 

[hedrick]

Is an account given?

Not sure what you're asking

 

[FireDragon76]

I used to like the Good News Bible a lot when I was much younger.

 

[Cappadocious]

Not sure what you're asking

You know, like an explanation of why that's their reading.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t read Hebrew, so I can just look at what words are there. There aren’t really connectives. There’s just

born guilty
sin my mother conceived me

Of course it’s possible that the grammar provides more specific connections. But I don’t get the impression from the commentaries that this is the case. Word commentary summarizes various views, and they have to do with overall readings of what Scripture means by sin, not specific grammatical constructs. So they say one traditional interpretation thinks “conceived” “hints at the beast-like element in the act of coition,” and understands the essence of the “desire for knowledge of good and evil” in Gen 3 as being sexual.

“However, this influential interpretation is dubious. That sexual desire is the “archetypal sin” of Gen 3 is very doubtful (see commentaries). Dalglish points out that “nowhere in the Old Testament is the legitimate act of coition referred to as sinful” (Psalm Fifty-One, 119). Such passages as Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7; 29:31; 30:22, 23; Ruth 4:13; Job 10:8–12; Ps 139:13–16 make it extremely difficult to maintain any inherent sinfulness in sexual intercourse, conception, and birth.”

Here’s what the NET Bible says:

Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

tn Heb “Look, in wrongdoing I was brought forth, and in sin my mother conceived me.” The prefixed verbal form in the second line is probably a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive), stating a simple historical fact. The psalmist is not suggesting that he was conceived through an inappropriate sexual relationship (although the verse has sometimes been understood to mean that, or even that all sexual relationships are sinful). The psalmist’s point is that he has been a sinner from the very moment his personal existence began. By going back beyond the time of birth to the moment of conception, the psalmist makes his point more emphatically in the second line than in the first.

Indeed NIV adopts the same translation:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Holman:

5 Indeed, I was guilty when I was born;
I was sinful when my mother conceived me.

For the Catholics, NJB:

remember, I was born guilty,
a sinner from the moment of conception

This is not an NRSV invention. Several commentaries use what is close to the KJV translation even though the commentary itself agrees with NRSV in meaning. This suggests that some scholars think the traditional translation actually means the same thing as the NRSV. The fact that several people here think there's a difference supports NRSV in clarifying it.

 

[Cappadocious]

I don’t read Hebrew, so I can just look at what words are there. There aren’t really connectives. There’s just

born guilty
sin my mother conceived me

Of course it’s possible that the grammar provides more specific connections. But I don’t get the impression from the commentaries that this is the case. Word commentary summarizes various views, and they have to do with overall readings of what Scripture means by sin, not specific grammatical constructs. So they say one traditional interpretation thinks “conceived” “hints at the beast-like element in the act of coition,” and understands the essence of the “desire for knowledge of good and evil” in Gen 3 as being sexual.

“However, this influential interpretation is dubious. That sexual desire is the “archetypal sin” of Gen 3 is very doubtful (see commentaries). Dalglish points out that “nowhere in the Old Testament is the legitimate act of coition referred to as sinful” (Psalm Fifty-One, 119). Such passages as Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7; 29:31; 30:22, 23; Ruth 4:13; Job 10:8–12; Ps 139:13–16 make it extremely difficult to maintain any inherent sinfulness in sexual intercourse, conception, and birth.”

Here’s what the NET Bible says:

Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

tn Heb “Look, in wrongdoing I was brought forth, and in sin my mother conceived me.” The prefixed verbal form in the second line is probably a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive), stating a simple historical fact. The psalmist is not suggesting that he was conceived through an inappropriate sexual relationship (although the verse has sometimes been understood to mean that, or even that all sexual relationships are sinful). The psalmist’s point is that he has been a sinner from the very moment his personal existence began. By going back beyond the time of birth to the moment of conception, the psalmist makes his point more emphatically in the second line than in the first.

Indeed NIV adopts the same translation:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Holman:

5 Indeed, I was guilty when I was born;
I was sinful when my mother conceived me.

For the Catholics, NJB:

remember, I was born guilty,
a sinner from the moment of conception

This is not an NRSV invention. Several commentaries use what is close to the KJV translation even though the commentary itself agrees with NRSV in meaning. This suggests that some scholars think the traditional translation actually means the same thing as the NRSV. The fact that several people here think there's a difference supports NRSV in clarifying it.

My problem here is with "guilty" and "sinner" being treated as synonymous with "in iniquities" "in sins" "sinful" etc. So far we've seen no account for why this would be the case, except for the assertion that the psalmist meant "a sinner from the beginning of his personal existence". Nothing in the above has given an account of that.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'll add to the confusion; NKJV:

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,a]">[a]
And blameless when You judge.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.​

ESV:

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.​

Luther's Bible:

3 Denn ich erkenne meine Missetat, und meine Sünde ist immer vor mir.

4 An dir allein habe ich gesündigt und übel vor dir getan, auf daß du recht behaltest in deinen Worten und rein bleibest, wenn du gerichtet wirst.

5
3 Denn ich erkenne meine Missetat, und meine Sünde ist immer vor mir.

4 An dir allein habe ich gesündigt und übel vor dir getan, auf daß du recht behaltest in deinen Worten und rein bleibest, wenn du gerichtet wirst.

5 Siehe, ich bin in sündlichem Wesen geboren, und meine Mutter hat mich in Sünden empfangen.​

Google translates verse 5 this way:

5 Behold, I was born in sinful beings , and my mother conceived me in sins.​

More literally I think (correct me if I'm wrong);

"5 See, I am a sinfully born being, I received sin(s) from my mother".
​

While good translations are good, they are still translations from another language. Referring to the ancient text, and comparing to other texts and translations help to see what is the intent of the original; a "word for word" from the German above, to English, would seem virtually nonsensical to us; even the Google version expresses an impression that is not all that consistent with the English translations we have explored above.

Modern German translations, I just discovered, use a different numbering system for verses; here is a Google transation from SCH-2000:

1 Dem Vorsänger. Ein Psalm Davids.

2 Als der Prophet Nathan zu ihm kam, weil er zu Bathseba eingegangen war:

3 O Gott, sei mir gnädig nach deiner Güte;
tilge meine Übertretungen nach deiner großen Barmherzigkeit!

4 Wasche mich völlig [rein] von meiner Schuld
und reinige mich von meiner Sünde;

5 denn ich erkenne meine Übertretungen,
und meine Sünde ist allezeit vor mir.

6 An dir allein habe ich gesündigt
und getan, was böse ist in deinen Augen,
damit du recht behältst, wenn du redest,
und rein dastehst, wenn du richtest.

7 Siehe, in Schuld bin ich geboren,
und in Sünde hat mich meine Mutter empfangen.
​

English:

1 To the Overseer. A Psalm of David.

2 When the prophet Nathan came to him because he had gone in to Bathsheba:

3 O God, be merciful to me according to thy mercy:
blot out my transgressions according to your great mercy!

4 Wash me completely [pure] of my guilt
and cleanse me from my sin;

5 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.

6 To thee only have I sinned
and done what is evil in thy sight,
thus keeping your right when you're talking about,
and pure stand there when you judge.

7 See, in guilt I was born,
and in sin my mother conceived me has.
​

Interesting; in our English and the old German, 19 verses; in the new German, 21.

 

[~Anastasia~]

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

This is basically the understanding I always had of the verse.

It's interesting to me that the wording reflects a completely different understanding in some cases. To me, this version reflects Orthodox theology, that one is born into a sinful world, and that is our fate from the moment we begin to develop. To say that we are born already bearing guilt (presumably for the sins of our ancestors) is a different matter.

I'd be interested to know the translation history and how far back the "inherited guilt" goes and where it enters in, if anyone has compiled such research. I'll try to do some looking around.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I guess I never read that passage in any of those versions before. Since Orthodox pray it so often, it is now sort of automatic. I think my Orthodox prayer app uses KJV and NKJV.

 

[hedrick]

I think the numbering difference is whether you assign verse numbers to title and ascription.

The translational difference doesn't always reflect a difference in exegesis. The original assertion was that NRSV was significantly different from RSV (and KJV). But that's only the case if you adopt a certain exegesis.

AV says

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceivea me.”

What does that mean? Does it mean that you inherit sin from your mother? Or worse, that your conception by your mother was actually sin? It certainly could. Both interpretations have been held. That translation pushes the most in that direction. ESV and RSV say:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

That still suggests the same meaning as the AV, but I think it’s a bit less explicit. Yet Anastasia thinks it implies the EO interpretation, which is that we’re brought into a world of sin.

NRSV and several other modern translations say

“Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.”

The implication here is that the individual has been a sinner from the beginning. It doesn’t actually say whether it’s inherited or not. The focus isn’t on where sin came from, as I think AV suggests, but the fact that the author was sinful from the beginning.

One of the arguments for the NRSV understanding is that the context is a confession of sin. Saying that it came from your mother is kind of shifting the blame. In context it makes a lot more sense to follow “my sin is ever with me” with “and I was a sinner from the beginning.” Where sin comes from is not germane to that prayer.

I'll do another check tomorrow to see if I have any information on history. The big surprise to me is that Calvin actually had the same understanding as the NRSV. But that's the only historical commentator I have.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hmmmmm.

I don't think there's very much wrong with interpreting it as being a sinner from the beginning, IF it is taken with the understanding that the newborn infant has not yet committed a sin he bears the guilt for. We all know that everyone sins, at least those who have reached a sufficient age to sin.

I personally don't hold with the "age of accountability". I know I stole a peanut at the grocery store when I was a toddler, and purposely hurt another child when playing roughly at not much older, and after I had done it, in both cases I recognized it was wrong and felt guilt, even though no one discovered my sins and punished or scolded me.

Simply, ALL humans will sin at some point, so calling us all "sinners" from that point of view is correct. The part I would question is whether a newborn infant is considered guilty and so condemned by God. That would seem to follow from the "born guilty" understanding, unless that penalty is removed however each particular theology would consider that to be accomplished.

While we do practice infant baptism, for the purpose of initiating the infant into the Church, and Chrismation, at the same time, the child is no different from an adult who is baptized. Both will still commit sins, and need to seek forgiveness. But if the infant dies, baptized or unbaptized, we trust them to the mercy of a loving God.

(Not arguing, btw, which I figure you know that, but just for the sake of any reading.)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hmmmmm.

I don't think there's very much wrong with interpreting it as being a sinner from the beginning, IF it is taken with the understanding that the newborn infant has not yet committed a sin he bears the guilt for. We all know that everyone sins, at least those who have reached a sufficient age to sin.

I personally don't hold with the "age of accountability". I know I stole a peanut at the grocery store when I was a toddler, and purposely hurt another child when playing roughly at not much older, and after I had done it, in both cases I recognized it was wrong and felt guilt, even though no one discovered my sins and punished or scolded me.

Simply, ALL humans will sin at some point, so calling us all "sinners" from that point of view is correct. The part I would question is whether a newborn infant is considered guilty and so condemned by God. That would seem to follow from the "born guilty" understanding, unless that penalty is removed however each particular theology would consider that to be accomplished.

While we do practice infant baptism, for the purpose of initiating the infant into the Church, and Chrismation, at the same time, the child is no different from an adult who is baptized. Both will still commit sins, and need to seek forgiveness. But if the infant dies, baptized or unbaptized, we trust them to the mercy of a loving God.

(Not arguing, btw, which I figure you know that, but just for the sake of any reading.)

"in sin did my mother conceive me" does convey that it is inherited; so does born sinful.

 

[prodromos]

"in sin did my mother conceive me" does convey that it is inherited; so does born sinful.

The Septuagint has "in sins did my mother bear me", which to me suggests more the environment he was born into rather than something passed on.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Septuagint has "in sins did my mother bear me", which to me suggests more the environment he was born into rather than something passed on.

Thanks for posting that; interesting thought.

 

[hedrick]

To me the difference in translation is focus, not implications. That is, if we're a sinner from the beginning, then there's clearly something that makes us that way. But the passage isn't about the origin of sin, even though it surely must have an origin. It's a confession, so what the passage talks about is that the author was a sinner from the beginning, not his mother's role in passing it on to him. The other implication is that we can't cite the passage as supporting any particular theory for how one becomes a sinner. Even in the AV it's not explicit enough to specify such a theory, but it's certainly been used that way.