Keeping One's Emotions in Check: Psalm 4:4 in the RSV/ESV

[Note: pardon the transliteration of Hebrew, but RapidWeaver still doesn't handle right-to-left text very well.]

I was teaching the imperative mood in my Greek class today when a question came up about an example I used. To illustrate the idea of an imperative granting permission, I offered the same verse as our textbook, Eph 4:26—

ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε
[You may] Be angry and/but do not sin

One of my students asked about the original OT passage that Paul quotes. He wanted to know if it was an imperative in the LXX. It’s true that the passage quotes Psalm 4:4 (4:5 in the LXX/BHS). And although I didn’t know the answer off the top of my head, it was easy enough to find out. So I threw an Accordance window onto the projector screen.

We looked up the passage in the LXX, and sure enough it was exactly the same down to the letter. The same imperative form for ὀργίζω (to be angry) was used in the passage: a present passive imperative, 2nd person plural. Someone looking in his own copy of the Bible noted however, that the NASB did not use “Be angry,” but rather Tremble. I suggested that often such a disagreement occurs because the NT writers usually quoted the LXX, but our modern translations are based off the Hebrew text and sometimes variations occur. Then I threw up a few English translations for comparison, most of which had the same or a similar idea as the NASB. But when I opened a pane with the ESV, I was surprised to see that it said, “Be angry... .”

Having spent enough time on this issue, I went back to our lesson. However, I was curious enough to look at this issue after class. As I was to confirm, the Hebrew for Psalm 4:4/5 is not a word that specifically means to be angry. The Hebrew word used 4:4/5, rigzu, is the qal imperative form of rgz. My Hebrew is in the rustier section of my language toolbelt, but I can still read a lexicon. And according to the HALOT, the qal form of rgz means (1) to tremble, be caught in restless motion, (2) to tremble with emotion: from terror, (3) to come out quaking with fear, (4) to get excited. Although it's not my desire to try to defend the LXX's choice of ὀργίζω for rgz, I can question the ESV's use of "Be angry" since the translation claims to be based on the Hebrew OT, and certainly not the Greek.

I should point out that the ESV does include an alternate translation to "Be angry" in the footnotes: "Or Be agitated." Is Be agitated a better translation? Well, according to the HALOT, only if rgz takes the hifil form (which it does not in Psalm 4).

My first hunch was simply to assume that the ESV translators were once again engaging in the questionable practice of trying to make the OT text conform to NT quotations, something that doesn't always work for reasons I've stated above. However, rather than jump to any sudden conclusions, I decided to check out other translations in the Tyndale tradition, especially the ESV's immediate predecessor, the RSV. After checking with the Tyndale translation, I was reminded that there is no Tyndale version of the Psalms (at least that's survived), so it's probably more accurate to say in the KJV tradition. The chart below demonstrates the variations of Psalm 4:4 in all translations that trace their lineage in one way or another to the KJV.



It's very interesting that while the KJV followed the Hebrew, it was the RSV that first departed and followed the LXX instead. I find this highly ironic since the RSV was heavily criticized by conservatives for following the Hebrew reading in Isa 7:14 instead of the LXX which harmonized with Matt 1:23. So I believe it's fair to say that initial fault does not lie with the ESV, but with the RSV. And I haven't looked at every translation on my shelf, but between the ASV and the RSV, only a couple of translations of any significance stand out: the Moffatt version and the Smith/Goodspeed version. Both of these use tremble. Therefore, as far as I know, it is the RSV that first introduced "Be angry" to Psalm 4:4.

However, the ESV is to be questioned here regardless because the translators have chosen to leave a faulty translation in place for what I can only guess is simply is simply for the sake of artificial harmonization. This follows one of my primary problems with the ESV--that the revisers did not update the RSV enough. Many of the awkward renderings or simply less-than-adequate translations found in the ESV are simply leftover baggage from the RSV.

That the ESV, which was moderately revised again earlier this year, has retained "Be angry" only suggests to me the original assumption I made that the handlers of this version wish to create a direct correspondence, a harmonization, between the OT text and the passages where it's quoted in the NT. This is problematic, though, when it no longer accurately reflections the meaning of the OT texts such as is the case here. Even the alternate translation, Be agitated would be closer to accuracy, but as is often the case with the ESV, the more accurate rendering is in the footnotes and a more "traditional" (even if inaccurate) rendering is in the main text (see for example, the ESV's consistent translation of ἀδελφοί/adelphoi in Paul's writings as "brothers" while noting the more accurate translation of "brothers and sisters" in the footnotes: Rom 1:13; 7:1; 8:12; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14; 16:14; 1 Cor 1:10; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24; 8:12; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6; 15:1; 16:15; 2 Cor 1:8; 8:1; 13:11; Gal 1:2; 3:15; 4:12; 6:1; Eph 6:23; Phil 1:12; 3:1; 4:1; Col 1:2; 4:15; 1 Thess 3:7; 4:1; 2 Thess 1:3; 2:1; 3:1; 1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 4:21). One wonders why the more accurate translations wouldn't simply be preferred in the main text? Well, evidently because it flies in the face of tradition.

As always, your thoughts are invited in the comments below. For reference sake, here is Psalm 4:4 in a few other translations. The ESV is not to be criticized by itself. The NLT and HCSB both use anger, which is even more surprising for the latter which usually goes out of its way to shun traditional renderings for the sake of accuracy. Of course "tradition" in this case only dates back to 1956 as far as I can tell. The original NIV also used anger, but the TNIV appropriately corrects this with Tremble.

“Be angry and do not sin” [note: Or Tremble] (HCSB)

“Tremble and do not sin” (GWT)

"So tremble, and sin no more" (JPS)

"Tremble with fear and do not sin!" (NET)

"In your anger do not sin" (NIV)

"Tremble and do not sin" (TNIV)

"Don’t sin by letting anger control you" (NLTse)

"Let awe restrain you from sin" (REB)

"Tremble with fear and stop sinning" (GNT)