Psalms:
Bk 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Bk 2: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Bk 3: 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Bk 4: 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
Bk 5: 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119a 119b 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132
133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Additional Psalms: 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Samuel Chronicles
Essays: Intro - Music - Form & Language
55:1 LA MENATSE'ACH BIN'GIYNOT MASKIL LE DAVID
לַמְנַצֵּחַ בִּנְגִינֹת מַשְׂכִּיל לְדָוִד
KJ (King James translation): (To the chief Musician on Neginoth, Maschil, A Psalm of David.) Give ear to my prayer, O God; and hide not thyself from my supplication.
BN (BibleNet translation): For the Leader of the string-section. A Teaching-Psalm. For David.
LA MENATSE'ACH: See my note on this at Psalm 51.
55:2 HA'AZIYNAH ELOHIM TEPHILATI VE AL TIT'ALAM MI TECHINATI
הַאֲזִינָה אֱלֹהִים תְּפִלָּתִי וְאַל תִּתְעַלַּם מִתְּחִנָּתִי
KJ: as above
BN: Listen, Elohim, to my prayer, and do not hide yourself from my supplication.
Check the parallels between this and the last; it seems to me it is repeating whole lines.
55:3 HAKSHIYVAH LI VA ANENI ARIYD BE SIYCHI VE AHIYMAH
הַקְשִׁיבָה לִּי וַעֲנֵנִי אָרִיד בְּשִׂיחִי וְאָהִימָה
KJ (55:2): Attend unto me, and hear me: I mourn in my complaint, and make a noise;
BN: Hear me, and answer me; else I shall ramble in my conversation, and make buzzing noises;
HA'AZIYNAH in the previous verse, HAKSHIYVAH now: both mean "listen", but one is much stronger than the other, the difference between "listening" and "hearing"?
ANENI: Does not mean "hear me", it means "answer me".
ARIYD: "To wander about", so in this context "to ramble".
SIYCHI: is this not from SIYACH = "a conversation"? Actually a SIYACH is a thorn-bush (Genesis 2:5, 21:15), and how it gets from there to "conversation", which is how it is translated in 1 Kings 18:27, or "sorrow" in Job 7:13 and 9:27 is beyond my skills to figure. All I can say is that 2 Kings 9:11 definitely has the sense of our verse.
SIYCHI: is this not from SIYACH = "a conversation"? Actually a SIYACH is a thorn-bush (Genesis 2:5, 21:15), and how it gets from there to "conversation", which is how it is translated in 1 Kings 18:27, or "sorrow" in Job 7:13 and 9:27 is beyond my skills to figure. All I can say is that 2 Kings 9:11 definitely has the sense of our verse.
AHIYMAH: Wonderfully onomatopoeic word. The root is HUM, pronounced like the OOM in oom-pah-pah, but its meaning is the way you would expect to pronounce it if it were an English word: like a bee buzzing, or Job snoring in those two links, or even more the sound of 2 Kings 9:11.
One oddity though - both ARIYD and AHIYMAH are in the future tense; almost as though he is threatening the deity: don't just listen to me, like a passing sound; hear me; respond to me; if you don't I shall start behaving peculiarly and you will have to deal with some serious static emerging from my lips. And that future tense will continue in the next verses.
55:4 MI KOL OYEV MIPNEY AKAT RASH'A KI YAMIYTU ALAI AVEN U VE APH YISTEMUNI
מִקּוֹל אוֹיֵב מִפְּנֵי עָקַת רָשָׁע כִּי יָמִיטוּ עָלַי אָוֶן וּבְאַף יִשְׂטְמוּנִי
KJ (55:3): Because of the voice of the enemy, because of the oppression of the wicked: for they cast iniquity upon me, and in wrath they hate me.
BN: Because of the voice of the enemy, because of the oppression of the wicked; for they will bring trouble on my head, and in their anger they will bear a grudge against me.
OYEV: We keep hearing about this "enemy", but it isn't really an enemy in the sense that we generally use the term: someone wilfully lined up against him, a foe, a rival, even another nation with an army. This is more about the "inner adversary", the Yetser ha Ra fighting against the Yetser ha-Tov, the negative misanthropic bullying the positive idealistic into subordination. This is a man fighting with his own alter ego.
Whereas, in verses 10 and 11, it appears, most definitely, to be a physical enemy - and still not.
APH: Is actually not anger at all, but "the nose". But what happens to your nose when you get angry. You inhale very hard through it, clenching the nostrils. The anger of the deity is appeased throughout Torah by sacrificing an animal; simply on the basis that he cannot resist the smell of roasting lamb, with or without rosemary, with or without mint (cf Genesis 8:20/21, but there are dozens of these).
YISTEMUNI: See my note at Genesis 27:41.
55:5 LIBI YACHIL BE KIRBI VE EYMOT MAVET NAPHLU ALAI
KJ (55:4): My heart is sore pained within me: and the terrors of death are fallen upon me.
BN: My heart will writhe within me, and the terrors of death will fall on me.
55:6 YIR'AH VE RA'AD YAV'O VI VA TECHASENI PALATSUT
KJ (55:5): Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me.
BN: Fear and trembling will come upon me, and horror will overwhelm me.
YIR'AH VE RA'AD: I presume this verse is the source of Kierkegaard's great philosophical analysis of faith, "Fear and Trembling".
55:7 VA OMAR MI YITEN LI EVER KA YONAH A'UPHAH VE ESHKONAH
KJ (55:6): And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.
BN: And I will say, "Give me wings like a dove and I will fly away and be at rest."
YONAH: "Dove". No Jewish text can mention a Yonah without it automatically alluding to an even more famous book/Prophet, one who was also a key player in the No'ach story (and an even more key player in the Jesus story, though you will need to read my commentaries on the Gospels for that).
The first, the Prophet who bore the name, took wings like a dove, fleeing in the opposite direction from the one he had been summoned to, and found the opposite of rest: a violent sea-storm that left him floundering in the ocean after being thrown overboard, and then rescued by that philanthropic literary hero Moby-Dick. No rest for Yonah then, and even less when he finally got to Nin'veh, preached repentance, and found the city forgiven because it had the temerity to respond positively to his exhortations, rather than carrying on sinning and being reduced to serves-you-right storm-damage as he would have preferred.
The second was an actual dove, and was sent out when the storm was finally calming down, in search not of whales but of olives, and we have no idea if he found rest or not; having brought back an olive at the second attempt he simply flew off again, presumably, this time, in search of a mate.
Would the worshippers of David's time have known the Yonah story, or indeed the No'ach story - both would have been central to the religion of the people who were dragged in chains to Kena'an by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, and who became known as the Shomronim or Samaritans What both tales have in common is their origins in Padan Aram, in that area of Anatolia where Mount Ararat is located. On the other hand, that was the same area from which Av-Ram came, and where Ya'akov spent two decades with the remainder of the family, the mother-territory of the Beney Chet (Hittites), and Kena'an was as much Hittite cultural territory as was Padan Aram.
See also my notes on the Kena'ani corn-god who was more importantly the Philistine sea-god Dagon, and which will take you, via Rashi, to Berossus' account of Oannes, the source of both the dove and the Yonah myth (and the Jesus connection mentioned above), and will confirm that both tales would certainly have been known in the Davidic epoch.
The end of verse 7 is also the end of Mendelsohn's great setting of this Psalm, generally known by that famous phrase in this verse, though actually it should be known by the name he gave it, "Hear My Prayer" (yes, in English; see the link). Click here to hear it.
55:5 LIBI YACHIL BE KIRBI VE EYMOT MAVET NAPHLU ALAI
לִבִּי יָחִיל בְּקִרְבִּי וְאֵימוֹת מָוֶת נָפְלוּ עָלָי
KJ (55:4): My heart is sore pained within me: and the terrors of death are fallen upon me.
BN: My heart will writhe within me, and the terrors of death will fall on me.
55:6 YIR'AH VE RA'AD YAV'O VI VA TECHASENI PALATSUT
יִרְאָה וָרַעַד יָבֹא בִי וַתְּכַסֵּנִי פַּלָּצוּת
KJ (55:5): Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me.
BN: Fear and trembling will come upon me, and horror will overwhelm me.
YIR'AH VE RA'AD: I presume this verse is the source of Kierkegaard's great philosophical analysis of faith, "Fear and Trembling".
55:7 VA OMAR MI YITEN LI EVER KA YONAH A'UPHAH VE ESHKONAH
וָאֹמַר מִי יִתֶּן לִּי אֵבֶר כַּיּוֹנָה אָעוּפָה וְאֶשְׁכֹּנָה
KJ (55:6): And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.
BN: And I will say, "Give me wings like a dove and I will fly away and be at rest."
YONAH: "Dove". No Jewish text can mention a Yonah without it automatically alluding to an even more famous book/Prophet, one who was also a key player in the No'ach story (and an even more key player in the Jesus story, though you will need to read my commentaries on the Gospels for that).
The first, the Prophet who bore the name, took wings like a dove, fleeing in the opposite direction from the one he had been summoned to, and found the opposite of rest: a violent sea-storm that left him floundering in the ocean after being thrown overboard, and then rescued by that philanthropic literary hero Moby-Dick. No rest for Yonah then, and even less when he finally got to Nin'veh, preached repentance, and found the city forgiven because it had the temerity to respond positively to his exhortations, rather than carrying on sinning and being reduced to serves-you-right storm-damage as he would have preferred.
The second was an actual dove, and was sent out when the storm was finally calming down, in search not of whales but of olives, and we have no idea if he found rest or not; having brought back an olive at the second attempt he simply flew off again, presumably, this time, in search of a mate.
Would the worshippers of David's time have known the Yonah story, or indeed the No'ach story - both would have been central to the religion of the people who were dragged in chains to Kena'an by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, and who became known as the Shomronim or Samaritans What both tales have in common is their origins in Padan Aram, in that area of Anatolia where Mount Ararat is located. On the other hand, that was the same area from which Av-Ram came, and where Ya'akov spent two decades with the remainder of the family, the mother-territory of the Beney Chet (Hittites), and Kena'an was as much Hittite cultural territory as was Padan Aram.
See also my notes on the Kena'ani corn-god who was more importantly the Philistine sea-god Dagon, and which will take you, via Rashi, to Berossus' account of Oannes, the source of both the dove and the Yonah myth (and the Jesus connection mentioned above), and will confirm that both tales would certainly have been known in the Davidic epoch.
The end of verse 7 is also the end of Mendelsohn's great setting of this Psalm, generally known by that famous phrase in this verse, though actually it should be known by the name he gave it, "Hear My Prayer" (yes, in English; see the link). Click here to hear it.
55:8 HINEH ARCHIK NEDOD ALIYN BA MIDBAR (SELAH)
הִנֵּה אַרְחִיק נְדֹד אָלִין בַּמִּדְבָּר סֶלָה
KJ (55:7): Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness. Selah.
BN: And you will see, then I will wander far off; I will make my temporary home in the wilderness. (Selah)
NEDOD: The "land of Nod" (Genesis 4:16), where Kayin (Cain) "settled" - an ironic term there, and even more ironic when alluded to here. The verb from the same root is LENADNED, and it means "to wander". So he has settled in Bedouville, eternal lodger at the transient caravanserai known as Motel Sand-Dune! But "East of Eden", which is Indiawards, not west of Eden, which would lead to Yisra-El.
The two previous Psalms followed David's life-story chronologically: his flight from Sha'ul to the shrine of Nov on one of the seven hills of pre-Yeru-Shala'im, where Do'eg saw him and reported the sighting to the king: then his further flight into the Wilderness, where the Ziyphim likewise spotted him, and reported back. If we go with my "plotology" hypothesis, that there is a storyboard underlying all these Psalms, and they are not in just any random order, we would now expect to find David precisely where this verse places him, lodged in the wilderness. At the Cave of Adul-Am to begin with, then further south, among the Beney Ziph as per the last Psalm, near Ke'ilah, then wherever he and his band of merry men (with Avi-Atar of Nov as Friar Tuck and Avi-Gayil as Maid Marian) were able to find safety from the pursuing Sha'ul, in the Sherwood Forest of the Aravah.
ARCHIK...ALIYN: Two more verbs in the future tense. Or are they? The KJ's translation here employs the future conditional, rather than the future active, and by doing so it posits an interesting alternative. Yehudit does not have a future conditional as such, but uses the verb "to be" in the imperfect, conjoined with the present tense, to make an equivalent. So "I would go" in English, would be translated (HAYAH METARGEM) as "HA'ITI OLECH". That is not what we have here, but it is certainly worth going back and superimposing the conditional on those futures, just to see what impact that has on the meaning.
55:9 ACHIYSHAH MIPHLAT LI ME RU'ACH SO'AH MI SA'AR
אָחִישָׁה מִפְלָט לִי מֵרוּחַ סֹעָה מִסָּעַר
KJ (55:8): I would hasten my escape from the windy storm and tempest.
BN: I will hasten my escape to a shelter from the stormy wind and tempest.
On the wings of a dove (YONAH)! In the belly of a whale (OANNES)!
55:10 BAL'A ADONAI PALAG LESHONAM KI RA'ITI CHAMAS VE RIYV BA IR
בַּלַּע אֲדֹנָי פַּלַּג לְשׁוֹנָם כִּי רָאִיתִי חָמָס וְרִיב בָּעִיר
KJ (55:9): Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city.
BN: Destroy, my Lord, and divide their tongues; for I have seen violence and strife in the city.
PALAG: I mentioned "Moby-Dick" earlier, which mythologically combines the tales of No'ach and Yonah (among many other mythological combinations). Captain Peleg, alongside Captain Bildad, was one of the co-owners of the ship, the Pequod - the link is to the character in Melville's book; for the reasons why Melville used the name, see my notes on PELEG. And having done that, we can now begin to explain what is meant by:
PALAG LASHONAM: The nightmares of life are being described metaphorically; the sea at a time of storm. The sea is being described anthropomorphically; the waves are its tongues. "Cut a furrow" through those tempestuous waves, and you will create a space of calm.
CHAMAS: Imagine the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s renaming themselves the Killarney Irish Liberation League or the Boys Of Munster Brigade! This is the equivalent of the Palestinian group who currently administers the Gaza Strip.
55:11 YOMAM VA LAILAH YESOVEVUHA AL CHOMOTEYHA VE AVEN VE AMAL BE KIRBAH
יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה יְסוֹבְבֻהָ עַל חוֹמֹתֶיהָ וְאָוֶן וְעָמָל בְּקִרְבָּהּ
KJ (55:10): Day and night they go about it upon the walls thereof: mischief also and sorrow are in the midst of it.
BN: Day and night they go around it, on its walls; iniquity too, and plain mischief, are among their numbers.
Like characters in a very different mythological novel, John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" - except that this is the "Dante's Inferno" gang, rather than Bunyan's "Good Christians". Leonard Bernstein wrote the score!
55:12 HAVOT BE KIRBAH VE LO YAMISH ME RECHOVAH TOCH U MIRMAH
הַוּוֹת בְּקִרְבָּהּ וְלֹא יָמִישׁ מֵרְחֹבָהּ תֹּךְ וּמִרְמָה
KJ (55:11): Wickedness is in the midst thereof: deceit and guile depart not from her streets.
BN: Wickedness sits its in gateway; oppression and guile refuse to leave its main square.
HAVOT: Note the double-Vav. There have been several occasions throughout TheBibleNet when I have noted an oddity involving a Vav without any Nikud. This becomes the exemplar for how Masoretic Yehudit and modern Ivrit generally convey this stronger-than-normal Vav - remember that the Biblical Vav was usually an Arabic wa, so that David should be pronounced Daoud; the double Vav renders it a V-sound.
KIRBAH...RECHOVAH: The "narrow" place and the "wide" place, literally - but again we are in the realm of metaphor.
KIRBAH: Which is intended as "the narrow place"? Possibly some back-alley, where the junkies and the prostitutes hang out. I have gone for the city gate, because that was also very narrow, but it was where the judges convened, and so understood as the symbol of justice - or, in this case, injustice.
RECHOVAH: On this too I have commented many times before; for reasons obscure, the KJ translators did have not have the advantage of the work of the modern archaeologists, and therefore have no idea what this was: not a street at all, though it yields the word RECHOV for "street" in modern Ivrit; but then the main plaza, just beyond the city gate, the stone equivalent of the "village green" in rural England; and in Ezra's time the place where the market was held on Mondays and Thursdays, and therefore both the time and the place where the Torah was read aloud to the people.
55:13 KI LO OYEV YECHARPHENI VE ESAH LO MESAN'I ALAI HIGDIL VE ESATER MIMENU
KJ (55:12): For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him:
BN: But it was not an enemy who was taunting me; that I could have borne; {N} Nor was it my adversary aggrandising himself against me; from that I could simply have kept myself apart.
Picking up my note at verse 4. But also raising a question: until now it has been "they", very much plural - in verses 5 and 11 explicitly plural, and in verse 5 explicitly "the terrors of death", which may be disease or natural disaster, but from the context is more likely to be knife-wielding gangs or posses of tabloid journalists shooting their cameras at you...
55:13 KI LO OYEV YECHARPHENI VE ESAH LO MESAN'I ALAI HIGDIL VE ESATER MIMENU
כִּי לֹא אוֹיֵב יְחָרְפֵנִי וְאֶשָּׂא לֹא מְשַׂנְאִי עָלַי הִגְדִּיל וְאֶסָּתֵר מִמֶּנּוּ
KJ (55:12): For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him:
BN: But it was not an enemy who was taunting me; that I could have borne; {N} Nor was it my adversary aggrandising himself against me; from that I could simply have kept myself apart.
Picking up my note at verse 4. But also raising a question: until now it has been "they", very much plural - in verses 5 and 11 explicitly plural, and in verse 5 explicitly "the terrors of death", which may be disease or natural disaster, but from the context is more likely to be knife-wielding gangs or posses of tabloid journalists shooting their cameras at you...
But we need the next verse before I can continue.
55:14 VE ATAH ENOSH KE ERKI ALUPHI U MEYUDA'I
KJ (55:13): But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance.
BN: But it was you, a human being just like me, my commander, and my best friend.
ENOSH: No question that this word means "human being". Then who is he addressing? Because it is a Psalm, we assume it must be the deity - but the deity is not "a human being just like me". Is he simply talking to his inner self, addressing his alter ego? Are we perhaps in the realms of that ISH, likewise a man though he is usually mistranslated as an angel, with whom Ya'akov wrestled through the night at Penu-El?
MEYUDA'I: Is that triple dot a qubuts or a typing error? Not the first occasion of this either.
55:15 ASHER YACHDAV NAMTIK SOD BE VEIT ELOHIM NEHALECH BE RAGESH
KJ (55:14): We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.
BN: We took sweet counsel together, in the house of Elohim we walked with the throng.
Or are we supposed to imagine that our speaker is David himself, and he is perhaps addressing his other soul-mate, the only male soul-mate amongst the many females, Yehonatan ben Sha'ul? But for that to work, there would need to be some episode, somewhere in his tale, where Yehonotan let him down, even slightly, and there quite simply isn't one.
55:16 YASHIYMAVET ALEYMO YERDU SHE'OL CHAYIM KI RA'OT BIM'GURAM BE KIRBAM
KJ (55:15): Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.
BN: Let them be abandoned in the midst of the desert. Let them go down alive into She'ol, for evil is their dwelling-place, both outside and inside.
YASHIYMAVET: There is a town, Beit Ha Yeshiymot in Numbers 33:49 and Joshua 12:3, near Avel-Shitim on the eastern side of the river Yarden, where the Mo-Avi desert starts. It is highly probable that the Masoretes have their pointing wrong, and we should be reading this as YESHIYMOT - see my note on the double-Vav at verse 12: this one is single. YESHIYMON is used as a poetical name for the desert in Psalm 68:8 and 78:40.
ALEYMO: We would normally expect ALEYHEM.
SHE'OL: Cannot be translated as "hell" - and though its mention here does add weight to the argument in favour of Yehonatan as the addressee here, the end of the verse cancels that: "both inside and outside". This is purely "the enemy within". He = I.
BIM'GURAM: or BI MEGURAM?
55:17 ANI EL ELOHIM EKR'A VA YHVH YOSHIYENI
KJ (55:16): As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
BN: As for me, I will call upon the gods, and YHVH will save me.
This poses once again one of the central problems of the entire Tanach, and of our understanding of the religion of the Beney Yisra-El. The school of Bible Criticism since the start of the 19th century has declared that Elohim was the name used in the post-Solomonic northern kingdom of Ephrayim, and YHVH in the southern kingdom of Yehudah, and that the Ezra Redaction simply amalgamated the two, keeping both names. But verses like this one entirely challenge that assumption (and see my essay, here, which does more than simply challenge it). Here, the text is quite clearly denoting two different deities, or it may be two different concepts of the same deity; but in my view the writer is calling upon the full pantheon of the gods (Elohim), with the anticipation that a specific god from among them (YHVH) will be the one who brings him salvation. This is polytheism; not yet monotheism; and it adds weight to the conviction that the Yah of Hallelu-Yah is the "shegal", the consort, the wife, the madonna, the Lady, the moon - the mother-goddess.
Having said which, see verse 24 where Elohim is very definitely singular and not plural; though in fact this is the normal convention throughout the Tanach: the multiple plural is always rendered with a singular verb (mayim, shemayim et al).
But see also verse 20, where the invoked deity is neither Elohim nor YHVH, but the father of the Kena'ani polytheon himself, El; and after mentioning him, the Elohim as a whole are then invoked, endorsing my argument.
55:18 EREV VA VOKER VE TSAHARAYIM ASIYCHAH VE EHEMEH VA YISHM'A KOLI
KJ (55:17): Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
BN: Evening and morning and noon I will restate my complaint, and make my buzzing noises; and he has heard my voice.
ASIYCHAH: 2nd time this word has come up in this Psalm (see verse 3); "conversation" or "complaint"? I don't think we can translate it as "pray", precisely because of its usage in verse 3. Likewise EHEMEH, which hummed in verse 3, and needs to go on humming now.
55:14 VE ATAH ENOSH KE ERKI ALUPHI U MEYUDA'I
וְאַתָּה אֱנוֹשׁ כְּעֶרְכִּי אַלּוּפִי וּמְיֻדָּעִי
KJ (55:13): But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance.
BN: But it was you, a human being just like me, my commander, and my best friend.
ENOSH: No question that this word means "human being". Then who is he addressing? Because it is a Psalm, we assume it must be the deity - but the deity is not "a human being just like me". Is he simply talking to his inner self, addressing his alter ego? Are we perhaps in the realms of that ISH, likewise a man though he is usually mistranslated as an angel, with whom Ya'akov wrestled through the night at Penu-El?
MEYUDA'I: Is that triple dot a qubuts or a typing error? Not the first occasion of this either.
55:15 ASHER YACHDAV NAMTIK SOD BE VEIT ELOHIM NEHALECH BE RAGESH
אֲשֶׁר יַחְדָּו נַמְתִּיק סוֹד בְּבֵית אֱלֹהִים נְהַלֵּךְ בְּרָגֶשׁ
KJ (55:14): We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.
BN: We took sweet counsel together, in the house of Elohim we walked with the throng.
Or are we supposed to imagine that our speaker is David himself, and he is perhaps addressing his other soul-mate, the only male soul-mate amongst the many females, Yehonatan ben Sha'ul? But for that to work, there would need to be some episode, somewhere in his tale, where Yehonotan let him down, even slightly, and there quite simply isn't one.
55:16 YASHIYMAVET ALEYMO YERDU SHE'OL CHAYIM KI RA'OT BIM'GURAM BE KIRBAM
יַשִּׁימָוֶת עָלֵימוֹ יֵרְדוּ שְׁאוֹל חַיִּים כִּי רָעוֹת בִּמְגוּרָם בְּקִרְבָּם
KJ (55:15): Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.
BN: Let them be abandoned in the midst of the desert. Let them go down alive into She'ol, for evil is their dwelling-place, both outside and inside.
YASHIYMAVET: There is a town, Beit Ha Yeshiymot in Numbers 33:49 and Joshua 12:3, near Avel-Shitim on the eastern side of the river Yarden, where the Mo-Avi desert starts. It is highly probable that the Masoretes have their pointing wrong, and we should be reading this as YESHIYMOT - see my note on the double-Vav at verse 12: this one is single. YESHIYMON is used as a poetical name for the desert in Psalm 68:8 and 78:40.
ALEYMO: We would normally expect ALEYHEM.
SHE'OL: Cannot be translated as "hell" - and though its mention here does add weight to the argument in favour of Yehonatan as the addressee here, the end of the verse cancels that: "both inside and outside". This is purely "the enemy within". He = I.
BIM'GURAM: or BI MEGURAM?
55:17 ANI EL ELOHIM EKR'A VA YHVH YOSHIYENI
אֲנִי אֶל אֱלֹהִים אֶקְרָא וַיהוָה יוֹשִׁיעֵנִי
KJ (55:16): As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
BN: As for me, I will call upon the gods, and YHVH will save me.
This poses once again one of the central problems of the entire Tanach, and of our understanding of the religion of the Beney Yisra-El. The school of Bible Criticism since the start of the 19th century has declared that Elohim was the name used in the post-Solomonic northern kingdom of Ephrayim, and YHVH in the southern kingdom of Yehudah, and that the Ezra Redaction simply amalgamated the two, keeping both names. But verses like this one entirely challenge that assumption (and see my essay, here, which does more than simply challenge it). Here, the text is quite clearly denoting two different deities, or it may be two different concepts of the same deity; but in my view the writer is calling upon the full pantheon of the gods (Elohim), with the anticipation that a specific god from among them (YHVH) will be the one who brings him salvation. This is polytheism; not yet monotheism; and it adds weight to the conviction that the Yah of Hallelu-Yah is the "shegal", the consort, the wife, the madonna, the Lady, the moon - the mother-goddess.
Having said which, see verse 24 where Elohim is very definitely singular and not plural; though in fact this is the normal convention throughout the Tanach: the multiple plural is always rendered with a singular verb (mayim, shemayim et al).
But see also verse 20, where the invoked deity is neither Elohim nor YHVH, but the father of the Kena'ani polytheon himself, El; and after mentioning him, the Elohim as a whole are then invoked, endorsing my argument.
55:18 EREV VA VOKER VE TSAHARAYIM ASIYCHAH VE EHEMEH VA YISHM'A KOLI
עֶרֶב וָבֹקֶר וְצָהֳרַיִם אָשִׂיחָה וְאֶהֱמֶה וַיִּשְׁמַע קוֹלִי
KJ (55:17): Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
BN: Evening and morning and noon I will restate my complaint, and make my buzzing noises; and he has heard my voice.
ASIYCHAH: 2nd time this word has come up in this Psalm (see verse 3); "conversation" or "complaint"? I don't think we can translate it as "pray", precisely because of its usage in verse 3. Likewise EHEMEH, which hummed in verse 3, and needs to go on humming now.
EHEMEH: The source of a certain type of cough, perhaps!
And if you find it curious that such language should be used in a Psalm, which is surely a piece of reverential liturgy for which total solemnity is a pre-requirement... why? This, as we have finally confirmed, is the Psalm of Dr Jekyll, having become aware that there is a Mr Hyde cohabiting his body, and his psyche. So he mocks himself, which is probably the best therapy that there is for such a schizophrenic nature. Though in Judaism it is not schizophrenia, but the Yetser ha Tov in permanent wrestling-match with the Yetser ha Ra.
55:19 PADAH VE SHALOM NAPHSHI MI KARAV LI KI VE RABIM HAYU IMADI
פָּדָה בְשָׁלוֹם נַפְשִׁי מִקֲּרָב לִי כִּי בְרַבִּים הָיוּ עִמָּדִי
KJ (55:18): He hath delivered my soul in peace from the battle that was against me: for there were many with me.
BN: He has restored my soul to wholeness, so that none of them approach me; for they were many who strove with me.
PADAH: As in the Pidyon ha Ben - redemption. But when you take something to a pawnbroker, and later redeem it, he restores it to you.
SHALOM: As pointed out a hundred times, SHALOM means "wholeness", which usually includes a state of peace, but is also much more.
KARAV: Playing with the KIRBAH of verse 12. This isn't solitude that he is describing, but the distance being kept by the bad guys in the city gate.
55:20 YISHMA EL VE YA'ANEM VE YOSHEV KEDEM (SELAH) ASHER EYN CHALIYPHOT LAMO VE LO YAR'U ELOHIM
KJ (55:19): God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. Selah. Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God.
BN: El will hear, and answer them - he who has been enthroned since ancient times - (Selah) {N} they who are incapable of change, and do not fear the gods.
A Selah-break mid-verse is unusual. To have a Nun break at the same moment may help to clarify it, however: clearly both the idea/theme and the musical accompaniment are shifting, the one in support of the other. From the point of view of the Maskil, can we assume that what follows is the wrap-up?
YA'ANEM: I questioned this last time it came up. LA'ANOT means "to answer"; is this then a different verb?
55:21 SHALACH YADAV BI SHLOMAV CHILEL BERIYTO
KJ (55:20) He hath put forth his hands against such as be at peace with him: he hath broken his covenant.
BN: He has raised his hands against the restoring of wholeness; he has profaned his covenant.
SHALACH: Is singular. The deity in the previous verse was singular, but the bad guys plural - so this has to be the deity, and this grammatically and syntactically incomplete sentence needs to be fleshed out to make sense. Because it clearly is not the deity.
55:20 YISHMA EL VE YA'ANEM VE YOSHEV KEDEM (SELAH) ASHER EYN CHALIYPHOT LAMO VE LO YAR'U ELOHIM
יִשְׁמַע אֵל וְיַעֲנֵם וְיֹשֵׁב קֶדֶם סֶלָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין חֲלִיפוֹת לָמוֹ וְלֹא יָרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים
KJ (55:19): God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. Selah. Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God.
BN: El will hear, and answer them - he who has been enthroned since ancient times - (Selah) {N} they who are incapable of change, and do not fear the gods.
A Selah-break mid-verse is unusual. To have a Nun break at the same moment may help to clarify it, however: clearly both the idea/theme and the musical accompaniment are shifting, the one in support of the other. From the point of view of the Maskil, can we assume that what follows is the wrap-up?
YA'ANEM: I questioned this last time it came up. LA'ANOT means "to answer"; is this then a different verb?
55:21 SHALACH YADAV BI SHLOMAV CHILEL BERIYTO
שָׁלַח יָדָיו בִּשְׁלֹמָיו חִלֵּל בְּרִיתוֹ
KJ (55:20) He hath put forth his hands against such as be at peace with him: he hath broken his covenant.
BN: He has raised his hands against the restoring of wholeness; he has profaned his covenant.
SHALACH: Is singular. The deity in the previous verse was singular, but the bad guys plural - so this has to be the deity, and this grammatically and syntactically incomplete sentence needs to be fleshed out to make sense. Because it clearly is not the deity.
SHLOMAV: Impossible to hear this word and not think of King Yedid-Yah the Second, the heir of King David, or King Yedid-Yah the First in full. The second took for his king-name Shelomoh, which we render as Solomon. But we also need to recall the names of the pre-Yeru-Shala'im villages, the seven hilltop enclaves which were conurbated into Yeru-Shala'im: Shalem, or probably something closer to the Arabic Sala'am, among them.
55:22 CHALKU MACHMA'OT PIYV U KARAV LIBO RAKU DEVARAV MI SHEMEN VE HEMAH PHETICHOT
KJ (55:21): The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.
BN: Smoother than cream were the speeches of his mouth, but his heart was war; {N} his words were softer than oil, yet were they keen-edged swords.
55:22 CHALKU MACHMA'OT PIYV U KARAV LIBO RAKU DEVARAV MI SHEMEN VE HEMAH PHETICHOT
חָלְקוּ מַחְמָאֹת פִּיו וּקֲרָב לִבּוֹ רַכּוּ דְבָרָיו מִשֶּׁמֶן וְהֵמָּה פְתִחוֹת
KJ (55:21): The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.
BN: Smoother than cream were the speeches of his mouth, but his heart was war; {N} his words were softer than oil, yet were they keen-edged swords.
Go back to my note to the last verse: the deity being singular and the bad guys plural. Because here the singular is in use again, and it cannot be the deity who is being described in this manner.
Perhaps we need to go back to SHELOMAV in the previous verse: David was prohibited from building the Temple because he had blood on his hands - multiple wars rather more than the death of Ur-Yah, which was purged and atoned separately. Only a man with clean hands could build a palace for YHVH - which is why Yedid-Yah the Second took that king-name.
Perhaps we need to go back to SHELOMAV in the previous verse: David was prohibited from building the Temple because he had blood on his hands - multiple wars rather more than the death of Ur-Yah, which was purged and atoned separately. Only a man with clean hands could build a palace for YHVH - which is why Yedid-Yah the Second took that king-name.
I am tempted to suggest that the Psalm is itself at fault, because the Psalmist is, so to speak, "rambling in his conversation"; and that may be correct, based on verse 3, but it doesn't sort out our confusion, any more than it does his. Alternately there is the inner struggle with the alter ego, who is ostensibly singular, but brings many and varied "troubles", which are plural, and Dr Jekyll has just looked in the mirror and seen Dorian Grey standing there, right next to Mr Hyde.
55:23 HASHLECH AL YHVH YEHAVCHA VE HU YECHALKELECHA LO YITEN LE OLAM MOT LA TSADIK
KJ (55:22): Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.
BN: Cast your burden upon YHVH, and he will sustain you; {N} he will never allow the righteous to be hurt.
HASHLECH: Picking up the negative SHALACH in verse 21, and "redeeming" it, restoring its wholeness; and confirming thereby that it was the bad guy in the singular in that verse.
55:23 HASHLECH AL YHVH YEHAVCHA VE HU YECHALKELECHA LO YITEN LE OLAM MOT LA TSADIK
הַשְׁלֵךְ עַל יְהוָה יְהָבְךָ וְהוּא יְכַלְכְּלֶךָ לֹא יִתֵּן לְעוֹלָם מוֹט לַצַּדִּיק
KJ (55:22): Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.
BN: Cast your burden upon YHVH, and he will sustain you; {N} he will never allow the righteous to be hurt.
HASHLECH: Picking up the negative SHALACH in verse 21, and "redeeming" it, restoring its wholeness; and confirming thereby that it was the bad guy in the singular in that verse.
MOT: Homophones with MOT = "death", but that is spelled with a final Tav (מות), not the Tet that it has here. And then in the next verse...
55:24 VE ATAH ELOHIM TORIDEM LI VE'ER SHACHAT ANSHEY DAMIM U MIRMAH LO YECHETSU YEMEYHEM VA ANI EVTACH BACH
וְאַתָּה אֱלֹהִים תּוֹרִדֵם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת אַנְשֵׁי דָמִים וּמִרְמָה לֹא יֶחֱצוּ יְמֵיהֶם וַאֲנִי אֶבְטַח בָּךְ
KJ (55:23): But thou, O God, shalt bring them down into the pit of destruction: bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in thee.
BN: But you, Elohim, will bring them down into the nethermost pit; {N} men of blood and deceit shall not live out half their days; {N} but as for me, I will trust in you. {P}
The evidence of history, and that of medical science, does not, alas, support the claim made in this verse.
Psalms:
Bk 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Bk 2: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Bk 3: 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Bk 4: 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
Bk 5: 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119a 119b 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132
133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Additional Psalms: 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Samuel Chronicles
Essays: Intro - Music - Form & Language
Copyright
© 2022 David Prashker
All
rights reserved
The
Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment