Biblical Hebrew Forum

[mjoseph <mjoseph AT terminal.cz>]

A friend asked me about the translation of the last line of Psalm 11. 
Here's the text (apologies for my transliteration scheme; if anyone will 
post the one we're supposed to follow, I'll be happy to use it):

YaSHaR  ([the] upright, *singular*)
YeCHeZU (will see, *plural*)
PaNeYMO (his face, which is *plural* in Hebrew, though singular in 
English).

At first glance, therefore, it looks like an open and shut case. The 
plural verb has to have the plural noun as the subject, the other noun 
must be the object, and the sentence should be translated: "His face will 
see the upright." This is the translation in the LXX (which, however, 
read the word "upright" as the noun "uprightness," and the verb as a past 
tense!), KJV, and both Czech versions.

However, many modern versions translate it the other way around, with 
"upright" as the subject and "his face" as the object. My friend 
mentioned the NAS; this is also the translation in the NIV (which 
translates "upright men" as a plural), Jerusalem Bible, and the French 
version I have. Keil & Delitzsch also translate this way. Why?  K & D 
give four reasons:

1) The word "upright" is used for a class of people (hence the plural in 
the NIV). Because it is used collectively, it can take a plural verb--a 
clear grammatical parallel is found in Job 8:19 ("another" [singular] 
"will sprout" [plural]). This is OK, but hardly necessary.
2) According to the parallelism, we'd expect to find a mention of the 
reward for the upright in this verse, to parallel the mention of the 
punishment of the wicked in verse 6.  According to K & D, "the upright 
will behold his face" fits the bill, whereas "His face will behold the 
upright" doesn't.  I can't say I agree, as we can easily consider God's 
consideration of us to be a reward. I don't have the references handy, 
nor did I check to see if the verb here (CHaZaH) can be used not of 
seeing, but of consideration, etc.
3) The word "face" is, according to K & D, *always what is seen*, *never 
what sees* (which would be 'eNaYiM).  If they are correct, this would be 
a decisive argument, but there is no way I can check out the 2,000+ 
occurrences of "face" in the Bible to find out.
4) This translation is in accord with Ps. 17:15; 140:13 (MT:v. 14) (and, 
I'd add, Mt. 5:8).

Two questions:

1) Does anyone have any evidence, statistics, or a computerized 
concordance which would show whether or not K & D are right in stating 
that PaNiYM is never the subject of a verb of seeing?

2) Unless that argument holds (in which case I would consider it 
decisive), what do you all think of the arguments for one translation or 
the other?  They seem to me to be about 50-50; if they weren't, perhaps 
scholars would a long time ago have come to a definitive conclusion.

Mark Joseph

____________________________
There are two kinds of fools:
The first says, "This is old, therefore it is good."
The other says, "This is new, therefore it is better."
______________________________________________________