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
לַמְנַצֵּחַ עַל יְדִיתוּן לְאָסָף מִזְמוֹר
KJ (King James translation): (To the chief Musician, to Jeduthun, A Psalm of Asaph.) I cried unto God with my voice, even unto God with my voice; and he gave ear unto me.
BN (BibleNet translation): For the Artistic Director. On the nature of praising. A Mizmor. To Asaph.
KJ puts the title in brackets, to indicate that it has also absorbed the first verse into this one; the numbering of the ensuing verses is then adjusted, as noted in my brackets.
YEDIYTUN: When we saw a similar title at Psalm 39, it was written almost as here, but with a prefix; while at Psalm 62 it was written as YEDUTUN; the spelling different because the grammar was different: "praise" there, "praising" here. Worth looking at the Septuagint for its rendition of this. As previously, is this AL = "on", or AL = "do not"? Logic says it has to be the latter on this occasion. See my notes at Psalm 39, which are then extended at Psalm 62.
77:2 KOLI EL ELOHIM VE ETS'AKAH KOLI EL ELOHIM VE HA'AZIYN ELAI
קוֹלִי אֶל אֱלֹהִים וְאֶצְעָקָה קוֹלִי אֶל אֱלֹהִים וְהַאֲזִין אֵלָי
KJ (77:1): as above
BN: [I shall lift up] my voice to Elohim, and I shall cry; [I shall lift up] my voice to Elohim, that he may hear me.
"I shall lift up": isn't actually in the text, but has been added by this translator. As poetry this is a minor problem, but only for a translator; as libretto the matter is entirely irrelevant, as nobody sings words that are not in the text.
ETS'AKAH: I am uncomfortable translating this as "cry" because I cannot control the ambivalence of that English word. LITS'OK really means "to shout" or "to call out", and "cry" in one of its valences conveys that; but "to cry" can also be "to weep" and "to lament", and there is no sense of that here; indeed the opposite, he is crying out jubilantly, because Elohim has answered his call. The rest of the Psalm will be the tale of that response.
HA'AZIYN: The OZEN is the ear, so the hope is that Elohim will turn his ear and be aware that some sound is coming towards it. If he actually pays attention, if he actually listens, let alone hears, the verb would be LEHAKSHIV. Several previous Psalms have focused on this very specific notion.
The title told us this was a MIZMOR rather than a SHIR, placing the music first and the lyric second; yet the opening line is very much structured as a song: echoes, repetitions, assonances, alliterations in very beautiful abundance: if translating the meanings is difficult, translating those sounds is almost unimaginable, in English or German definitely, in French, Italian, Spanish, possibly; into Arabic, no problem, because it would use the same assonances and alliterations, because the languages are so similar.
77:3 BE YOM TSARATI ADONAI DARASHTI YADI LAILAH NIGRAH VE LO TAPHUG ME ANAH HINACHEM NAPHSHI
KJ (77:2): In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord: my sore ran in the night, and ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted.
BN: At the time of my sickness I sought my Lord; {N} my hand was throbbing with pain all night, and the swelling would not go down; my anxiety levels were through the roof.
The letters (mostly "a-sounds") that produce the assonances are different in this verse, and the lengths of the words modify the tone and thereby the ambience, but this is song, pure song.
The title told us this was a MIZMOR rather than a SHIR, placing the music first and the lyric second; yet the opening line is very much structured as a song: echoes, repetitions, assonances, alliterations in very beautiful abundance: if translating the meanings is difficult, translating those sounds is almost unimaginable, in English or German definitely, in French, Italian, Spanish, possibly; into Arabic, no problem, because it would use the same assonances and alliterations, because the languages are so similar.
77:3 BE YOM TSARATI ADONAI DARASHTI YADI LAILAH NIGRAH VE LO TAPHUG ME ANAH HINACHEM NAPHSHI
בְּיוֹם צָרָתִי אֲדֹנָי דָּרָשְׁתִּי יָדִי לַיְלָה נִגְּרָה וְלֹא תָפוּג מֵאֲנָה הִנָּחֵם נַפְשִׁי
KJ (77:2): In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord: my sore ran in the night, and ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted.
BN: At the time of my sickness I sought my Lord; {N} my hand was throbbing with pain all night, and the swelling would not go down; my anxiety levels were through the roof.
The letters (mostly "a-sounds") that produce the assonances are different in this verse, and the lengths of the words modify the tone and thereby the ambience, but this is song, pure song.
TSARATI: Tsures in the Yiddish, and the word covers all manner of "troubles", from financial to bereavement, from rows with the spouse to bullying bosses; but here, from the second part of the verse, it is specified as physical ailment.
YADI: Why does KJ translate it as "my sore"? YAD means "hand". The big question here though is: which hand? In the world of the Davidic Psalms, the right hand is very much more symbolic than the left! See verse 11.
ME ANAH HINACHEM NAPHSHI: And yes, obviously that is not an accurate, literal translation; but the objective of translation is to render the text in language that is comprehensible to the reader, while retaining the original meaning, and this allows me to observe that what we today call the "psyche", they then called the "soul", and our terminologies for the detail of their working were likewise different, but our understanding probably remarkably alike.
77:4 EZKERAH ELOHIM VE EHEMAYAH ASIYCHAH VE TIT'ATEPH RUCHI (SELAH)
אֶזְכְּרָה אֱלֹהִים וְאֶהֱמָיָה אָשִׂיחָה וְתִתְעַטֵּף רוּחִי סֶלָה
KJ (77:3): I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah.
BN: [At times like these in the future] I shall think of Elohim, and moan, and complain, until my anxiety is brought back to calmness. Selah
Future tense, or past? Verse 2 was definitely future, verse 3 past; and this is future again. The question applies throughout this Psalm.
This verse resumes the sounds of verse 2, but then: TIT'ATEPH. Did the music get written first, and the librettist found this, to the joy of the composer? Or the composer received this from the librettist, and just grinned, because it was simply too easy to orchestrate. Tit'ateph. Perfect!
TIT'ATEPH: Hitpa'el, or reflexive form, so there is also a sense that he is a factor in his own cure: the mere act of expressing it, whether through screams, or prayer, or indeed through poetry, impacts on the mental state, and induces tranquility (the verb is in the 3rd person singular, feminine - because Ru'ach is feminine). Dare I suggest to Sylvia Plath that, based on this verse, the blood-jet is not poetry, but the poetry may well be the tourniquet that you place upon the blood-jet?
And note the Selah - the double-bar in the musical notation (not to be said or sung!). After it, we can expect the music of the words to change. Section 2.
77:5 ACHAZTA SHEMUROT EYNAI NIPH'AMTI VE LO ADABER
KJ (77:4): Thou holdest mine eyes waking: I am so troubled that I cannot speak.
BN: You held fast my eyelids; I was troubled, and could not speak.
ACHAZTA SHEMUROT: Held them fast "closed", or held them fast "open"? We are not told, and it really does make a difference. Clenched or staring? A SHOMER is a person who observes, whether the MISHMAROT who make astonomical observations from the high towers, or the SHOMER SHABBAT who "observes" the rules, or simply the security guard at the city gate; so we can say that these eyes are very wide open.
77:6 CHISHAVTI YAMIM MI KEDEM SHENOT OLAMIM
KJ (77:5): I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.
KJ (77:6): I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.
BN: In the night I will recall my melody to my memory; I will make my complaint in my own heart, and it will seek out my spirit.
77:8 HA LE'OLAMIM YIZNACH ADONAI VE LO YOSIPH LIRTSOT OD
KJ (77:7): Will the Lord cast off for ever? and will he be favourable no more?
BN: Will my lord spurn me for ever? And will he respond no more to my needs?
HA LE'OLAMIM is a lovely double-alliteration, but also worth noting as an unusual occurrence of a very Yehudit grammatical device: HA, which is normally the definite article, used to denote an interrogative (equivalent to "est-ce que?" in French). Regularly used in modern Ivrit (but only in written text, rarely in speech.
But surely, if you've now got your LEV and your RU'ACH working in partnership, and you are engaged at the level of determination expressed throughout this Psalm, why do you need a priest-confessor, or a couch-psychiatrist, or a deity, at all? You are doing just fine and active on your own - and thereby fulfilling the most important of all the commandments, issued when the deity appointed Humankind as steward of the Earth, in Genesis 1: take charge, you don't need me.
KJ (77:8): Is his mercy clean gone for ever? doth his promise fail for evermore?
BN: Has his compassion been reduced to zero for ever? Is His promise come to an end for evermore?
77:10 HA SHACHACH CHANOT EL IM KAPHATS BE APH RACHAMAV (SELAH)
KJ (77:9): Hath God forgotten to be gracious? hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies? Selah.
BN: Has El forgotten to be gracious? Has he in anger shut up his compassion? (Selah)
This is my favourite though, in this Psalm. Again the interrogative, making the verse a triplet. But this verse is about the expression of anger, and when we are angry we spit: so the Yehudit is full of Chets and Chafs and Pheys, bringing up the bile dissonantly from the depth of the chest, and then spitting it right out. And there the second section ends too: I imagine the music will have crashed to accompany it, lots of tambourine bashing and cymbal thrashing; not too much need for the pan-pipes!
EL: Not even Elohim, this is the father of the Kena'ani polytheon. And Elyon in the next verse.
77:11 VA OMAR CHALOTI HI SHENOT YEMIN ELYON
KJ (77:10): And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.
BN: And I say: This is my weakness, which the right hand of Elyon could change along the years.
OMAR: My final note at verse 8 applies here. The OMER was 3rd person, outside the self; this is 1st person, rooted inside the self. "I" has replaced "he".
KJ (77:11): I will remember the works of the LORD: surely I will remember thy wonders of old.
YAH: See the link.
77:13 VE HAGIYTI VE CHOL PA'ALECHA U VA'ALIYLOTEYCHA ASIYCHAH
KJ (77:12): I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings.
Sadly this is not one of the Psalms that Leonard Bernstein set to music for Chichester (he used Psalms 100 and 108 for Parts 1 and 2, 23 for Part 2, and 131 and 133 for Part 3). Listen to them here.
77:14 ELOHIM BA KODESH DARKECHA MI EL GADOL K'ELOHIM
KJ (77:13): Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
BN: Elohim, your way lies in holiness; who is a great god like Elohim?
KODESH: The name of a place? There are several such in the various biblical texts, though they are usually called KADESH rather than KODESH. But the word means "holy", so any shrine, any place with any religious connotation, could be regarded as KODESH. And then there are the temples themselves, of which the Solomonic in Yeru-Shala'im is probably not the one intended here, because that is referred to by many names - Heychal is the most common - but always with a definite article if KODESH is used: HA KODESH.
MI...KE: One of the oddities of monotheism, even after it became the Omnideity of YHVH: it still recognises that there are actually other gods in the cosmos; it just refuses to grant them any merit.
KJ (77:14): Thou art the God that doest wonders: thou hast declared thy strength among the people.
BN: You art the god who performs wonders; you have made known your strength among the people.
ATAH HA EL: And this is why: they just don't have the what-it-is that the Elohim have. Third rate deities. Don't waste your time worshipping them! So the 2nd Commandment - "You shall have no other gods before me", means what it says: "you can have as many gods after me as you please - but why would you bother?" And actually, if you look at the verse that follows the commandment, Exodus 20:3, why would you need a law prohibiting the making of images of those deities, if they didn't exist? To prohibit the images is to acknowledge the existence of the deities. So monotheism isn't really monotheism at all: it's divine autocracy, a one-party state from which all oher parties are banned (but still carrying on in secret).
77:16 GA'ALTA BIZRO'A AMECHA BENEY YA'AKOV VE YOSEPH (SELAH)
KJ (77:15): Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.
BN: You have with your arm redeemed your people, the children of Ya'akov and Yoseph. (Selah)
Section 1 had three verses, section two 6, section three 6. Section 5 will have just 5 verses.
BIZRO'A: Where exactly is the arm in this verse? And which arm - right presumably (left-handedness is either mildly gauche or completely sinister, but never any good, sorry). But more important, I think, is the distinction between the arm and the hand: the hand is Bin-Yamin, the earth-god, the youngest son who will inherit in this cult of ultimogeniture (Psalm 89:14); but the arm is... see Deuteronomy 26:8, Psalm 136:12...
YA'AKOV VE YOSEPH: Why phrase it like this? The Beney Yisra-El are understood to be the twelve sons of Ya'akov, of whom Yoseph was one; but Yoseph has no tribal inheritance, ostensibly because he married out; except that that would disallow his sons even more, and yet they have tribal inheritances. My reading - see the detailed commentary in the latter books of Genesis - is that neither Bin-Yamin, who Rachel called Ben-Oni, nor Yoseph, were ever sons of Ya'akov, but Egyptian tribes that became attached to the Beney Yisra-El later on, and the tales amended to absorb them.
77:17 RA'UCHA MAYIM ELOHIM RA'UCHA MAYIM YACHIYLU APH YIRGEZU TEHOMOT
KJ (77:16): The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled.
BN: The waters saw you, Elohim; the waters saw you; they were in pain; even Tehomot was trembling.
And suddenly, from nowhere, we enter the realms of Creation mythology. First the elemental waters, which have to break for Creation to take place, whether it be the birth of a human child, or that event metaphored into the sunrise of the Am-Tuat, or the No'achic Flood.
TEHOMOT: In Genesis 1 she is singularised as Tehom, but here the full plurality. It also explains why the wonders were attributed to Yah at verse 12, whose womb was needed to hatch the Cosmic egg, while the works and deeds are attributed to Elyon, whose "Word" was the articulation of E into MC².
Let the choir and orchestra resume. A triplet again, the first two opening with the same two words (RA'UCHA ELOHIM), which is also a case of Parallelism and an echo-line. Is YACHIYLU the third word of the second triplet, or a stand-alone, or somehow prefatory to the third triplet? Complex word-play - you can see why Nerd became so popular in ancient Yisra-El, even before the Persians developed it into Shach-Mat ("dead king") - the game is now called Chess: brain-games!
77:18 ZORMU MAYIM AVOT KOL NATNU SHECHAKIM APH CHATSATSEYCHA YIT'HALACHU
KJ (77:17): The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: thine arrows also went abroad.
BN: The clouds teemed water; the skies thundered; metaphorical arrows rained down on every side.
KJ (77:19): Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.
BN: Your way was in the sea, and your path in the great waters, and your footsteps were not known.
KJ: Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
And note the Selah - the double-bar in the musical notation (not to be said or sung!). After it, we can expect the music of the words to change. Section 2.
77:5 ACHAZTA SHEMUROT EYNAI NIPH'AMTI VE LO ADABER
אָחַזְתָּ שְׁמֻרוֹת עֵינָי נִפְעַמְתִּי וְלֹא אֲדַבֵּר
KJ (77:4): Thou holdest mine eyes waking: I am so troubled that I cannot speak.
BN: You held fast my eyelids; I was troubled, and could not speak.
ACHAZTA SHEMUROT: Held them fast "closed", or held them fast "open"? We are not told, and it really does make a difference. Clenched or staring? A SHOMER is a person who observes, whether the MISHMAROT who make astonomical observations from the high towers, or the SHOMER SHABBAT who "observes" the rules, or simply the security guard at the city gate; so we can say that these eyes are very wide open.
77:6 CHISHAVTI YAMIM MI KEDEM SHENOT OLAMIM
חִשַּׁבְתִּי יָמִים מִקֶּדֶם שְׁנוֹת עוֹלָמִים
KJ (77:5): I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.
BN: I have pondered the days of old, the years of times-gone-by.
Two very much shorter lines; verse 5 caesura'ed so that it has two distinct halves, verse 6 also split in two, but rather differently, using internal rhyme to achieve it: YAMIM-OLAMIM.
77:7 EZKERAH NEGIYNATI BA LAILAH IM LEVAVI ASIYCHAH VA YECHAPES RUCHI
Two very much shorter lines; verse 5 caesura'ed so that it has two distinct halves, verse 6 also split in two, but rather differently, using internal rhyme to achieve it: YAMIM-OLAMIM.
77:7 EZKERAH NEGIYNATI BA LAILAH IM LEVAVI ASIYCHAH VA YECHAPES RUCHI
אֶזְכְּרָה נְגִינָתִי בַּלָּיְלָה עִם לְבָבִי אָשִׂיחָה וַיְחַפֵּשׂ רוּחִי
KJ (77:6): I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.
BN: In the night I will recall my melody to my memory; I will make my complaint in my own heart, and it will seek out my spirit.
Again the switch to the future tense, even while he is so self-consciously remembering the past.
NEGIYNATI: Neither the song (Shir) nor the musical accompaniment (Mizmor), though of course it is ultimately both; but quite specifically the tune, the melody.
This verse is in three parts, the first two again based on an internal rhyme: LAILAH-ASIYCHAH, the third part then picking up the end of verse 4 and echoing it: VE TIT'ATEPH RUCHI...VA YECHAPES RUCHI.
NEGIYNATI: Neither the song (Shir) nor the musical accompaniment (Mizmor), though of course it is ultimately both; but quite specifically the tune, the melody.
This verse is in three parts, the first two again based on an internal rhyme: LAILAH-ASIYCHAH, the third part then picking up the end of verse 4 and echoing it: VE TIT'ATEPH RUCHI...VA YECHAPES RUCHI.
ASIYCHAH: If we translated it as "complaint" at verse 4, then surely we must be consistent in translating it the same here? But then we will also need to be consistent when it recurs at verse 14 - and we cannot, because it definitely is not a complaint there. A SICHAH is "conversation", usually with another person or people, but in this Psalm it appears to be with oneself. Do we need to find a different English word for "complaint", because of verse 14?
VA YECHAPES RUCHI: I pointed out in the previous verse that RU'ACH is feminine, and did so in part to explain a seeming ambiguity in the translation there, but also as a prelude to the mistranslation here. RU'ACH is feminine, so if the soul or spirit is doing the seeking, in the future tense, it would have to be TECHAPES (תחפש). But this is YECHAPES, masculine. And third person, not first, so it cannot be I, either. LEV however is masculine, so it has to be the LEV which is doing the seeking - and now you can go back to my absurd translation of the end of verse 3, and understand more fully why I did it. The LEV in Biblical times was indeed the heart, but it was also the locus of thought - put the LEV and the RU'ACH together, as the current verse is "seeking" to do, and you will end up with that seat of "rational emotion" and "subjective objectivity" which we call the "psyche".
77:8 HA LE'OLAMIM YIZNACH ADONAI VE LO YOSIPH LIRTSOT OD
הַלְעוֹלָמִים יִזְנַח אֲדֹנָי וְלֹא־יֹסִיף לִרְצוֹת עוֹד
KJ (77:7): Will the Lord cast off for ever? and will he be favourable no more?
BN: Will my lord spurn me for ever? And will he respond no more to my needs?
HA LE'OLAMIM is a lovely double-alliteration, but also worth noting as an unusual occurrence of a very Yehudit grammatical device: HA, which is normally the definite article, used to denote an interrogative (equivalent to "est-ce que?" in French). Regularly used in modern Ivrit (but only in written text, rarely in speech.
But surely, if you've now got your LEV and your RU'ACH working in partnership, and you are engaged at the level of determination expressed throughout this Psalm, why do you need a priest-confessor, or a couch-psychiatrist, or a deity, at all? You are doing just fine and active on your own - and thereby fulfilling the most important of all the commandments, issued when the deity appointed Humankind as steward of the Earth, in Genesis 1: take charge, you don't need me.
77:9 HE APHES LA NETSACH CHASDO GAMAR OMER LE DOR VA DOR
הֶאָפֵס לָנֶצַח חַסְדּוֹ גָּמַר אֹמֶר לְדֹר וָדֹר
KJ (77:8): Is his mercy clean gone for ever? doth his promise fail for evermore?
BN: Has his compassion been reduced to zero for ever? Is His promise come to an end for evermore?
This is a song that is using echoes constantly, so we are almost expecting that HA to recur in the very next verse; the variation, HE, is because the following word begins with an Aleph (sort of equivalent to "a" becoming "an" in English before a vowel or an "h").
APHES: "From Aphes to Netsach" was presumably the ancient Yehudit equivalent of Greek "alpha to omega", though it is not used today, probably because most people don't know the mythology - see my notes to Apsu.
OMER: A sheaf of barley, counted every day from the second day of Pesach to the start of Shavu'ot (click here). But also AMAR, "to say", which is to DAVAR, "a word", what LEHAKSHIV is to HA'AZIYN in verse 2; and DAVAR is always spelled with an upper case "D" in English, because it is the logos, "the Word of God"
APHES: "From Aphes to Netsach" was presumably the ancient Yehudit equivalent of Greek "alpha to omega", though it is not used today, probably because most people don't know the mythology - see my notes to Apsu.
OMER: A sheaf of barley, counted every day from the second day of Pesach to the start of Shavu'ot (click here). But also AMAR, "to say", which is to DAVAR, "a word", what LEHAKSHIV is to HA'AZIYN in verse 2; and DAVAR is always spelled with an upper case "D" in English, because it is the logos, "the Word of God"
77:10 HA SHACHACH CHANOT EL IM KAPHATS BE APH RACHAMAV (SELAH)
הֲשָׁכַח חַנּוֹת אֵל אִם קָפַץ בְּאַף רַחֲמָיו סֶלָה
KJ (77:9): Hath God forgotten to be gracious? hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies? Selah.
BN: Has El forgotten to be gracious? Has he in anger shut up his compassion? (Selah)
This is my favourite though, in this Psalm. Again the interrogative, making the verse a triplet. But this verse is about the expression of anger, and when we are angry we spit: so the Yehudit is full of Chets and Chafs and Pheys, bringing up the bile dissonantly from the depth of the chest, and then spitting it right out. And there the second section ends too: I imagine the music will have crashed to accompany it, lots of tambourine bashing and cymbal thrashing; not too much need for the pan-pipes!
EL: Not even Elohim, this is the father of the Kena'ani polytheon. And Elyon in the next verse.
77:11 VA OMAR CHALOTI HI SHENOT YEMIN ELYON
וָאֹמַר חַלּוֹתִי הִיא שְׁנוֹת יְמִין עֶלְיוֹן
KJ (77:10): And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.
BN: And I say: This is my weakness, which the right hand of Elyon could change along the years.
OMAR: My final note at verse 8 applies here. The OMER was 3rd person, outside the self; this is 1st person, rooted inside the self. "I" has replaced "he".
CHALOTI HI: Endorsed with the possessive pronoun here. And yes, "the right hand of Elyon" could "change" through the "years" (both of those are implicit in SHENOT), but still, this is mine, I am in charge. Though whether by the "weakness" he means his own damaged hand (which was anyway metaphorical), or his need for the healing hand of the Bin-Yamin... both, probably; it usually is (and especially the latter, because that turns out to be his strength too! He finds himself through the process of seeking the deity).
ELYON: This began with Elohim, then changed to El in verse 10, Elyon here, and Yah in the next. A definite sense that the entire polytheon is being invoked. But still no YHVH (not even as an addendum at the end)!
77:12 AZKIR MA'ALELEY YAH KI EZKERAH MI KEDEM PIL'ECHA
77:12 AZKIR MA'ALELEY YAH KI EZKERAH MI KEDEM PIL'ECHA
אַזְכִּיר מַעַלְלֵי יָהּ כִּי אֶזְכְּרָה מִקֶּדֶם פִּלְאֶךָ
KJ (77:11): I will remember the works of the LORD: surely I will remember thy wonders of old.
BN: I will recall the deeds of the Lady; I will remember your wonders of old.
MA'ALELEY: We have, on any number of occasions in these texts, explored the significant differences between PE'ULAH (for which see the next verse), AVODAH and MELACHOT as three forms of work; MA'ALALEY is much less common. Deuteronomy 28:20 uses it, but I want particularly to draw your attention to Judges 2:19, because my translation there, made years ago, reaffirms my commentary here, made now, and does so by recognising the danger implicit in this, at least from a theological point of view: you still need the moral code to guide you, even if you are doing this yourself; you still need the hand of the Bin-Yamin to provide the table of values.
MA'ALELEY: We have, on any number of occasions in these texts, explored the significant differences between PE'ULAH (for which see the next verse), AVODAH and MELACHOT as three forms of work; MA'ALALEY is much less common. Deuteronomy 28:20 uses it, but I want particularly to draw your attention to Judges 2:19, because my translation there, made years ago, reaffirms my commentary here, made now, and does so by recognising the danger implicit in this, at least from a theological point of view: you still need the moral code to guide you, even if you are doing this yourself; you still need the hand of the Bin-Yamin to provide the table of values.
YAH: See the link.
77:13 VE HAGIYTI VE CHOL PA'ALECHA U VA'ALIYLOTEYCHA ASIYCHAH
וְהָגִיתִי בְכָל פָּעֳלֶךָ וּבַעֲלִילוֹתֶיךָ אָשִׂיחָה
KJ (77:12): I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings.
BN: I will meditate also upon all your work, and muse on your doings.
ASIYCHAH: See my notes at verse 7. Is it feasible that he does mean "complain" here? If one meditates on "all the works" of the deity, then one has to include the negative as well as the positive, the tectonic plates and COVID-19s as much as the PA'ALEYCHA, the "wondrous miracles". Come great sun and turn your face to shine on us - but not so much that we burn or get skin cancer.
ASIYCHAH: See my notes at verse 7. Is it feasible that he does mean "complain" here? If one meditates on "all the works" of the deity, then one has to include the negative as well as the positive, the tectonic plates and COVID-19s as much as the PA'ALEYCHA, the "wondrous miracles". Come great sun and turn your face to shine on us - but not so much that we burn or get skin cancer.
HAGIYTI: I have taken the words out of order, because I needed to ask the above question first. HAGAH, like EHEMAYAH in verse 2, could be "making sound" in the most beautifully lyrical way, though this Psalm has rather more discord and dissonance than such a suggestion might imply. But both could also be "moaning", "grumbling" or even "growling". Joshua 1:8 is the source for "meditate", once again affirming the philosophical intention of this Psalm; though this does feel like meditation à la Ebenezer Scrooge, rather than, say, St Thomas.
As any good suite or sonata in modern music would, even one as short as this, each section needs to be self-identifying in its verbal content, and also in its form. So we have noted the poetical differences between the first two sections, and inferred what might be the orchestration. So this third section is different again, the content changed, but also the tone, verses 12 and 13 both in the recitative style that we are accustomed to in Psalms and prayers, lines that flow in elevated, musicalised prose, but still effectively prose; and rightly, because this is now direct petition. Indeed, I can easily imagine the choir and orchestra gone quiet, the soloist - perhaps the Kohen himself - now reciting from the bimah.
77:14 ELOHIM BA KODESH DARKECHA MI EL GADOL K'ELOHIM
אֱלֹהִים בַּקֹּדֶשׁ דַּרְכֶּךָ מִי אֵל גָּדוֹל כֵּאלֹהִים
KJ (77:13): Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
BN: Elohim, your way lies in holiness; who is a great god like Elohim?
KODESH: The name of a place? There are several such in the various biblical texts, though they are usually called KADESH rather than KODESH. But the word means "holy", so any shrine, any place with any religious connotation, could be regarded as KODESH. And then there are the temples themselves, of which the Solomonic in Yeru-Shala'im is probably not the one intended here, because that is referred to by many names - Heychal is the most common - but always with a definite article if KODESH is used: HA KODESH.
MI...KE: One of the oddities of monotheism, even after it became the Omnideity of YHVH: it still recognises that there are actually other gods in the cosmos; it just refuses to grant them any merit.
77:15 ATAH HA EL OSEH PHEL'E HODA'TA VA AMIM UZECHA
אַתָּה הָאֵל עֹשֵׂה פֶלֶא הוֹדַעְתָּ בָעַמִּים עֻזֶּךָ
KJ (77:14): Thou art the God that doest wonders: thou hast declared thy strength among the people.
BN: You art the god who performs wonders; you have made known your strength among the people.
ATAH HA EL: And this is why: they just don't have the what-it-is that the Elohim have. Third rate deities. Don't waste your time worshipping them! So the 2nd Commandment - "You shall have no other gods before me", means what it says: "you can have as many gods after me as you please - but why would you bother?" And actually, if you look at the verse that follows the commandment, Exodus 20:3, why would you need a law prohibiting the making of images of those deities, if they didn't exist? To prohibit the images is to acknowledge the existence of the deities. So monotheism isn't really monotheism at all: it's divine autocracy, a one-party state from which all oher parties are banned (but still carrying on in secret).
77:16 GA'ALTA BIZRO'A AMECHA BENEY YA'AKOV VE YOSEPH (SELAH)
גָּאַלְתָּ בִּזְרוֹעַ עַמֶּךָ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב וְיוֹסֵף סֶלָה
KJ (77:15): Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.
BN: You have with your arm redeemed your people, the children of Ya'akov and Yoseph. (Selah)
Section 1 had three verses, section two 6, section three 6. Section 5 will have just 5 verses.
BIZRO'A: Where exactly is the arm in this verse? And which arm - right presumably (left-handedness is either mildly gauche or completely sinister, but never any good, sorry). But more important, I think, is the distinction between the arm and the hand: the hand is Bin-Yamin, the earth-god, the youngest son who will inherit in this cult of ultimogeniture (Psalm 89:14); but the arm is... see Deuteronomy 26:8, Psalm 136:12...
YA'AKOV VE YOSEPH: Why phrase it like this? The Beney Yisra-El are understood to be the twelve sons of Ya'akov, of whom Yoseph was one; but Yoseph has no tribal inheritance, ostensibly because he married out; except that that would disallow his sons even more, and yet they have tribal inheritances. My reading - see the detailed commentary in the latter books of Genesis - is that neither Bin-Yamin, who Rachel called Ben-Oni, nor Yoseph, were ever sons of Ya'akov, but Egyptian tribes that became attached to the Beney Yisra-El later on, and the tales amended to absorb them.
77:17 RA'UCHA MAYIM ELOHIM RA'UCHA MAYIM YACHIYLU APH YIRGEZU TEHOMOT
רָאוּךָ מַּיִם אֱלֹהִים רָאוּךָ מַּיִם יָחִילוּ אַף יִרְגְּזוּ תְהֹמוֹת
KJ (77:16): The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled.
BN: The waters saw you, Elohim; the waters saw you; they were in pain; even Tehomot was trembling.
And suddenly, from nowhere, we enter the realms of Creation mythology. First the elemental waters, which have to break for Creation to take place, whether it be the birth of a human child, or that event metaphored into the sunrise of the Am-Tuat, or the No'achic Flood.
TEHOMOT: In Genesis 1 she is singularised as Tehom, but here the full plurality. It also explains why the wonders were attributed to Yah at verse 12, whose womb was needed to hatch the Cosmic egg, while the works and deeds are attributed to Elyon, whose "Word" was the articulation of E into MC².
Let the choir and orchestra resume. A triplet again, the first two opening with the same two words (RA'UCHA ELOHIM), which is also a case of Parallelism and an echo-line. Is YACHIYLU the third word of the second triplet, or a stand-alone, or somehow prefatory to the third triplet? Complex word-play - you can see why Nerd became so popular in ancient Yisra-El, even before the Persians developed it into Shach-Mat ("dead king") - the game is now called Chess: brain-games!
77:18 ZORMU MAYIM AVOT KOL NATNU SHECHAKIM APH CHATSATSEYCHA YIT'HALACHU
זֹרְמוּ מַיִם עָבוֹת קוֹל נָתְנוּ שְׁחָקִים אַף חֲצָצֶיךָ יִתְהַלָּכוּ
KJ (77:17): The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: thine arrows also went abroad.
BN: The clouds teemed water; the skies thundered; metaphorical arrows rained down on every side.
ZORMU: Inundated, poured, stormed... lots of options. But "teemed" for Tehomot, surely!
And now that we have realised what the real subject is, the figures of speech become piercingly obvious.
Again a triplet, each of three words, the lines growing longer as the meanings become more complex. Exactly the same in verses 19 and 20.
77:19 KOL RA'AMCHA BA GALGAL HE'IYRU VERAKIM TEVEL RAGZAH VA TIR'ASH HA ARETS
KJ (77:18): The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
Again a triplet, each of three words, the lines growing longer as the meanings become more complex. Exactly the same in verses 19 and 20.
77:19 KOL RA'AMCHA BA GALGAL HE'IYRU VERAKIM TEVEL RAGZAH VA TIR'ASH HA ARETS
קוֹל רַעַמְךָ בַּגַּלְגַּל הֵאִירוּ בְרָקִים תֵּבֵל רָגְזָה וַתִּרְעַשׁ הָאָרֶץ
KJ (77:18): The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
BN: The sound of your thunder was in the whirlwind; the lightning lit up the world; the Earth trembled and shook.
GALGAL: all these references to primordial things, and now this word... see the link.
77:20 BA YAM DARKECHA U SHEVIYLEYCHA BE MAYIM RABIM VE IKVOTEYCHA LO NODA'U
77:20 BA YAM DARKECHA U SHEVIYLEYCHA BE MAYIM RABIM VE IKVOTEYCHA LO NODA'U
בַּיָּם דַּרְכֶּךָ וּשְׁבִילֶיךָ בְּמַיִם רַבִּים וְעִקְּבוֹתֶיךָ לֹא נֹדָעוּ
KJ (77:19): Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.
BN: Your way was in the sea, and your path in the great waters, and your footsteps were not known.
Like Aphrodite, YAH was born of the foam of the sea, and gave her name for that reason to the great ocean that joins the Greek world to the Kena'ani: the Ionian. In which case, and with the Tiamat references, this third section must have been a very ancient hymn to YAH, as one of the of the Elohim; and not so much as a mention of YHVH anywhere.
77:21 NACHIYTA CHA TSON AMECHA BE YAD MOSHEH VE AHARON
77:21 NACHIYTA CHA TSON AMECHA BE YAD MOSHEH VE AHARON
נָחִיתָ כַצֹּאן עַמֶּךָ בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן
KJ: Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
BN: You led your people like a flock, by the hand of Mosheh and Aharon. {P}
And this last line clearly added later on, as part of the process of Yehudaisation.
The Psalm is sub-titled "On the Nature of Praising", and we need to return to that, to make a conclusion. "We praise the deity because the process of doing so, employing song and music and reflection in a shared environment with other seekers, takes us deeper inside ourselves than any other activity we know, and finding our Self gives us the strength to deal with anything and everything in life, without even needing the deity, though we go on praising him, even for that removed need." Does that work? As explanation, I mean; it self-evidently works as a strategy for meaningful life.
The Psalm is sub-titled "On the Nature of Praising", and we need to return to that, to make a conclusion. "We praise the deity because the process of doing so, employing song and music and reflection in a shared environment with other seekers, takes us deeper inside ourselves than any other activity we know, and finding our Self gives us the strength to deal with anything and everything in life, without even needing the deity, though we go on praising him, even for that removed need." Does that work? As explanation, I mean; it self-evidently works as a strategy for meaningful life.
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