Today’s responsorial Psalm is Psalm 96.  In verse 5, there is a word play between the words translated “gods of the peoples” and the word translated “idols” (or “worthless idols” or “worthless” dependent on which translation you are reading).  I wanted to see if you can hear it.

Psalm 96:5

For all the gods of the peoples are idols,
but the Lord made the heavens.

See here for the Hebrew text of Psalm 96.  The phrase in question for “gods of the peoples” are the third and fourth words; the additional word in question is the fifth word with a variety of translations, one of which is “idols.”

Hebrew Audio of Psalm 96:5

Okay, see if you can hear it.  The Hebrew is ‘elohey ha’ammim – ‘eliyliym

The word play creates a stark contrast between what the peoples believe their gods to be and what they really are.  ‘eliyliym is often translated as “idols,” but the root meaning of the word likely has something to do with being weak, feeble, worthless.  This contrast is taken even further in the second half of the verse where these “gods/idols” are compared to YHWH, namely in the statement that “YHWH has created the heavens/sky.”

Related Posts:

Psalm 98 and Assonance

Psalm 1.4 – A Video Illustration of Chaff

Psalm 1.1 – Translation Comparison

Psalm 85.11 (English verse 10) is the kind of verse in comparing parallel translations that could drive a sane man crazy.  Five different translations and three different renderings of the word hesed and three different renderings of the verb tenses.

Parallel Comparison of Psalm 85.11

Here are the parallel translations in BibleWorks:

Notice that the first word, which is rendered for the Hebrew hesed, is translated as “steadfast love”(ESV, NRSV) “love” (NAB, TNIV) and “lovingkindness” (NASB).  This word is notoriously difficult to translate as some have proposed possibilities such as “covenant loyalty,” and even further, others have proposed that the word does not translate readily into English and should be left untranslated.  These translators would simply transliterate the word as hesed and leave it up to the individual interpreter to make a decision as to how to best understand the idea.

Now, check out the verb tenses.  The verbs are translated “meet/kiss” (sounds like a gnomic type present – ESV, TNIV), “will meet/will kiss” (future – NAB, NRSV), and “have met” (past – NASB).  Each of the translations have some merit.  There are a future (vs. 9) and a present (implied – vs. 10) in the context that the translators could be following.  Yet the form is identified by morphology databases as perfect and could be translated with an English past tense.

Overall, I think how the verse should be translated is ambiguous.  But, this should serve as a lesson for English interpreters in the value of comparing translations.  In preaching or teaching, I would be somewhat careful of making too much out of the word meanings, though certainly you must choose one, or of making much out of the tenses of the verbs.

Related Posts:

Psalm 1.1 – Translation Comparison

Isaiah 41 – An Interesting Translation Issue

An Ancient of Days or The Ancient of Days: Does it Really Matter?

I have always enjoyed reading Westermann for some reason or another.  I just finished reading Westermann’s book entitled Psalms for the second time with the first time being a very long time ago back when I was in seminary. And, I would have to say that I would heartily recommend the book.  It is a short, quick read written in an engaging, interesting style.

It is not so much that the content of the book is unchallenged.  Some of the ideas in fact have been challenged with one example springing immediately to mind being the existence of Wisdom Psalms.  Westermann discusses Wisdom Psalms; however, subsequent scholars have questioned this category on the basis that there are no firm criteria for placing a Psalm in this category other than vocabulary.  Certainly some Psalms exhibit many of the characteristics of Wisdom literature, but do these Psalms merit their own category?  In addition the whole idea of categories has been shown to be somewhat difficult to work with in every circumstance since some Psalms use mixed forms and do not fit well into any of the types.

With that said, some of the forms discussed by Westermann do still provide a helpful paradigm for discussing the Psalms as a whole, continuing to show up in places like Miller’s Interpreting the Psalms.  In addition, for those unfamiliar with form criticism in general Westermann on the Psalms (as well as Westermann on the Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech) provides, in my opinion, an accessible and very practical example of form criticism at work.  I am not strictly a form critic, as I do not think that anyone in today’s climate in Biblical Studies can be simply one type of critic or another; however, I do think that I have been able to glean a great deal from Westermann concerning in what ways form criticism can be helpful.

So, go ahead and read Westermann on the Psalms.  It’s only 132 pages and worth the short amount of time.

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from last week:

Psalm 1 – Translation Comparison

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

Abimelech in Psalm 34?

There is an interesting anomaly in verse 1 of Psalm 34.  It reads:

Of David, when he feigned madness before Abimelech, who forced him to depart.

The problem is that in the episode where David feigns madness the king is actually Achish (see 1 Samuel 21), not Abimelech.  So, how has this been explained (similar explanations in various sources)?

1. Scribal error
2. Abimelech is a general name for Philistine Kings
3. Abimelech is Achish’s dynastic name

Not sure how well any of these work, like how a scribe would get Abimelech out of Achish (though it is interesting that David has dealings with Ahimelech just before the story in which he feigns madness in 1 Samuel 21).  As to the last two suggestions, I’ve not seen them anywhere else other than in reading up on this verse.  Interesting …

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from last week:

Psalm 1 – Translation Comparison

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

Psalm 34 has inspired, in my opinion, some of the best Psalmody in modern times within my own church tradition.  Below I’ve posted a YouTube video of one of my favorite responses based on Psalm 34, “The Cry of the Poor,” though this is not the greatest rendition.

The Cry of the Poor (Psalm 34)

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from last week:

Psalm 1 – Translation Comparison

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

… asking for something, occurs only peripherally in the Psalms, if at all.  Almost always petitions of the Psalms are concerned with deliverance from acute trouble.  We never meet what is so common and entirely natural in our modern prayers: a heaping up of individual requests.

Claus Westermann, Psalms (Chapter 1, “The Community Psalm of Lament”)

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from this week:

Psalm 1 – Translation Comparison

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

God is neither a rescue machine nor a supernatural force. God is a person, and one can ask him for help only when that personhood is taken seriously.

Claus Westermann on the Community Psalm of Lament, Psalms (Chapter 1, “The Community Psalm of Lament”)

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from this week:

Psalm 1 – Translation Comparison

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

The Responsorial Psalm for today is Psalm 1 as you might have gathered from my previous post.  In reading through Psalm 1 in the New American Bible (=NAB), I felt like it obscured the progression to be found in verse 1, so I took a look at the verse in parallels.  It turns out that a number of other translations handle the verse in a way similar to the NAB, whereas two others do not.

Psalm 1.1 in the NAB

Blessed the man who follows not
the counsel of the wicked
Nor go in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the company of the insolent,

The verbs in question in this verse are those translated as “follows,” “go,” and “sits” in the NAB.  In this translation, the first two verbs are treated as near synonyms.  But, let’s see how these verbs are handled by other versions.

Psalm 1.1 in Parallel Versions

Parallel Versions Viewed in BibleWorks 8

Here are how the verbs are handled:

New American Bible – “follow,” “go,” “sit”

New American Standard – “walk,” “stand,” “sit”

New Revised Standard – “follow,” “take (the path – these words are not part of verb),” “sit”

Today’s New International – “walk,” “stand,” “sit”

New Jewish Publication Society – “follow,” “take (the path),” “join”

The translation issue revolves primarily around the second verb.  In the NAB, NRSV, and NJPS, the second verb is translated as a near synonym of the first “follow-go/take (the path)”.  In the NASB and TNIV, it is translated as “stand.”  It would seem that the translations that treat the second verb as a near synonym of the first are trying to deal with the presence of the word “path” as in “take the path.”  “Stand” does not really capture the type of movement associated with a path, though “stand” is the most common translation of the word.

So, does one nuance the word more commonly translated as “stand” in order to capture the motion of the path?  I do not think that is necessary or helpful here because I believe it obscures the increase of engagement, which John Hobbins calls a crescendo.  Maintaining the translation “stand” the progression is then “walk,” “stand,” and “sit.”  As one moves through these verbs, one gets a greater sense of lingering.  I don’t think this progression is captured as well when the first two verbs are translated as near synonyms.  So, I would translate the second verb as stand while realizing why others would prefer a verb that captures the motion of the path.

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from this week:

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

Psalm 1.4

But not the wicked! They are like chaff driven by the wind. (NAB)

Have you ever wondered what chaff being driven by the wind looks like?  Of course, modern Africa is not Ancient Israel, but I doubt chaff being driven by the wind has changed much.  Here is a video that shows chaff being driven by the wind.  Pretty cool.

Related – Check out some of my other Psalms posts from this week:

Psalm 103 & Prosperity Thought

Psalm 98 & Assonance

I was reading Psalm 103 from the lectionary and was particularly struck today by verse three.  It contains a pretty big, bold sounding statement that without looking I’m sure has probably been seized upon by prosperity preachers.  Now, I would be the first to tell you that I think health-wealth and prosperity preaching is a blight.  But, I would be lying if I said there wasn’t potential fodder for it in the Bible, especially when not read properly (and even sometimes when read properly, but I’m not an inerrantist).  If verse 3 from today’s reading was used as fodder, it would, I think, be a case of not reading properly.

Psalm 103.3

The text reads as follows:

He pardons all your iniquities,
he heals all your ills. (NAB)

Heals all your ills?  Awesome! Because my upper back has really been hurting.  I’m being sarcastic, of course (though not about my back hurting).  This is the kind of phrase along with ones like “by his stripes we are healed” (if that is a proper textual reading at all) that is seized upon by health-wealth preachers.  “You see, it says right there that God promises to heal all our ills/diseases.  All you have to do is believe and lay hold to that promise … And, oh yeah .. give me all your money.”

Now, many of us from life experience simply know and accept that the health-wealth understanding of this verse is not true.  We have prayed for a loved one believing full-well God could heal that person if he wanted to … Then nothing happens (and I’m not just talking about terminal illness here).  For most of us that life experience teaches us that we are not reading this particular text properly.  But, for some that will not be satisfying.  So, how does one approach Psalm 103.3 if confronted by … I don’t know … let’s say Benny Hinn?

How to Read Psalm 103.3

I would say that like most occasions the context helps tremendously here.  I would read the second part of Psalm 103.3 either as a synonymous parallel with the first the first part of the verse or read it as an exaggeration in light of verses 15-16.  If the second part of verse three is a synonymous parallel with the first part then the healing of ills is a metaphor for the healing of iniquities.  I won’t go into this too much since parallelism in Biblical Hebrew poetry sometimes doesn’t really fit that easily into categories.  And, I don’t think this explanation is necessary, though it is possible.

I think the second possible route works even better.  I would read the second half of 103.3 as an exaggertation in light of verses 15-16, which read as follows:

Our days are like the grass; like flowers of the field we blossom.

The wind sweeps over us and we are gone; our place knows us no more. (NAB)

Apparently, the statement “he heals all your ills” is made even in light of the fact that the author has a clear understanding of the idea that everyone will die … swiftly.  Well, I suppose if we’re all going to die God won’t heal all our ills.  Everyone uses the word “all” in exaggerated ways from time to time and poetic usage probably lends itself to this.  I may say, “I go eat sushi all the time.”  If one takes that statement to a literal extreme, then they will have to fashion me a liar.  If I ate sushi all the time, I would die from a lack of sleep.  In the same way, from verses 15-16 one can argue that at least in this Psalm God, doesn’t heal all our ills, and not even the biggest, most scary one for most people, namely death.  “All” here simply does not mean what a health-wealth preacher would take it to mean.

Other Posts of Psalms:

Psalm 98 and Assonance

This Psalmist Must Have Never Had Children

Video Illustration for Psalm 124