One thing that is more objectionable is the Uniontown Basilian translation of "Blazhen Muzh", or "Blessed is the Man". They have this translated as "Blessed is the One". The big problem with this is that the particular psalm is considered to be Messianic, and refers personally to Jesus Christ.

Dn. Robert

So Deacon -- why can "Blessed is the One" not still apply to Jesus? I don't see, logically, why the pronoun "One" cannot apply to Jesus and be understood messianically.

There is a hermeneutical question here when it comes to messianic psalms. As the Pope has pointed out in his recent book on Jesus, often these Old Testament passages have multiple meanings and interpretations exist on several layers. Thus the translator is forced to decide which interpretation to stress without doing undue justice to the other interpretations/layers.

In the case you mentioned the translation preserves the Messianic emphasis (Blessed is the One) while also allowing for the moral interpretation that stresses that each follower of Christ should not stand with the wicked, etc.

NKJ Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.

We don’t know how the sister’s translation using One would treat this, but standard gender-neutralizing translations use the device of switching to a plural form

This is precisely what has been done in the Uniontown Basilian translation. This is from the text of The Office of Vespers-1987 edition-from the First Kathisma: 'Blessed are those who trust in Him!'

Sorry not in this case they didn't. Psalm 2:12 in the RSV:CE reads: "Blessed are all who take refuge in him."

It should also be noted that while the Byzantine Church has considered Psalm 1 Messianic others do not. Some taught that only Psalms 2 and 109(110) were Messianic, and again the RSV:CE seems to support this in its notes.

It should also be noted that while the Byzantine Church has considered Psalm 1 Messianic others do not.

Any second year linguistics student should be able to accomplish this rendering over a lunch break.

KJV, Psalm 1:1a
“Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly….”

RSV, Psalm 1:1a
“Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked….”

4. The disappearance of the righteous man from wisdom literature.

Psalm 1 begins with a description of a righteous man: "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners..but his delight is in the law of the Lord" (RSV). Here the Hebrew word for "man" is 'ish, which ordinarily means a "man" in distinction from woman (except in some rare idiomatic constructions). The "default" sense of the word, the sense readers would attach to this word unless the context required another sense, is "man." Psalm 1 holds up a solitary righteous man who stands against plural "sinners" as an example for all Israelites to emulate (similarly, Proverbs 31 holds up a godly woman as an example to emulate).

But this righteous man is gone from the NRSV: "Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked...but their delight is in the law of the LORD." The NIVI similarly says "Blessed are those...their delight...," and the ncv, CEV, and NLT do the same.

Now there is no ambiguity in the original Hebrew text over the fact that the righteous "man" is singular and "the wicked," "sinners," and "scoffers" are all in plural. Prior to the advent of the "gender-neutral" NRSV in 1989, all English translations rendered Psalm 1 this way -- the blessed "man" was singular, and "sinners" and "scoffers" were plural. Of course, some scholars may question whether the psalmist intended this singular-plural contrast to be something that readers noticed, something that is important to interpreting the Psalm, so that we notice the courage of this solitary man in contrast to many "sinners." People may differ over whether this is intended, but the point remains: English readers should be able to have an English translation that lets them know that the singular-plural contrast is there, so that they may consider for themselves whether such a contrast is important for interpretation. With a gender-neutral translation, they do not even have that option.

The NIVI "Preface" explains what led to this translation of Hebrew singular words with English plural words. It was not that scholars suddenly discovered in 1992 that the singular Hebrew wordha'ish/ ("the man") was really plural (which would have required ha'anashim). Rather, the translators tell us that "In order to avoid gender-specific language in statements of a general kind, it was agreed that the plural might be substituted for the singular and the second person for the third person" (p. vii). Evangelical Christians should ponder that sentence well: it says they "substituted" plurals for singulars, and second person statements for third person. It does not say the original Hebrew or Greek words were plural, or were in the second person. It says they changed ("substituted") singulars to plurals and third person to second person.

Psalm 1 is a good example of this process: the maleness of the passage was "muted" by changing to plurals: "Blessed are those...their delight is in the law of the Lord." Suddenly the "patriarchal" language is gone. It hasn't disappeared from the Hebrew text (which still talks about a single "man," and uses masculine singular pronouns to speak of "his" delight in the law of the Lord, on which say "he" meditates day and night.) But the offensive "patriarchalism" that was in the Hebrew text has disappeared from the English translation.

I strongly disagree with this procedure. The evangelical doctrine of Scripture is that every word of the original is exactly what God wanted it to be, because "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). If God caused Psalm 1 to be written with singular nouns and pronouns, then we should reflect the sense of those words in English translation. We must not "substitute" other words with different senses.

At this point someone may object, "But doesn't Psalm 1 also apply to women? Then shouldn't we translate it as "they" so that women don't miss the point?" Of course it applies to women as well, just as the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) applies to daughters as well as sons. But we must not translate Luke 15 to speak of a prodigal "child," or Psalm 1:1 to speak of the blessed "person," for that is not what the words mean in those verses. The definite expression ha'ish ("the man") uses a specifically male-oriented word to mean, "the man."

Translations need to be literally accurate, and carry with them all the possible nuances of the original texts...

Further, the pronoun used in Hebrew “'ish” in this context refers to a man that is also male. So an accurate translation must include this reference to a man who is also male.

Especially in this case since the Psalms are poetry. Even apart from translating, who would want to change "To be or not to be, that is the question" to "Should I kill myself or not?" etc.?

'ish is a noun, so there is already an alteration and weakening in the imagery if even the masculine pronoun is used instead, let alone the more general "whoever." The Hebrew has the definite article too (though it can function differently in various languages), i.e. ha'ish, allowing for not just a man but specifically the man.