TheBibleNet: Psalm 81

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

The Old Latin entitles Psalm 81 quinta sabbati, "the fifth day of the week", though really that should be translated, in the proper Jewish manner, as "the fifth day towards the Shabat". The Old Latin is absolutely correct too: click here for a detailed explanation of how the Psalms of the Day were [probably or at least possibly] selected; or go to page 293 of "A Myrtle Among Reeds" for a rather less orthodox-academic explanation. The full list is

Day One (Sunday) Psalm 24

Day Two (Monday) Psalm 14 (or 48 - see my notes at Psalm 82)

Day Three (Tuesday) Psalm 82

Day Four (Wednesday) Psalm 94:1-95:3

Day Five (Thursday) Psalm 81

Day Six (Friday) Psalm 93

Day Seven (Saturday) Psalm 92

The variations for New Moon and other festivals are also listed in "Myrtle", and there is a short commentary on each Psalm there as well.

As to the text itself, yet another sermon in criticism of Yisra-El, for its failure to live up to the divine expectations; but this one is presented (from verse 10 anyway) as though it were the deity himself speaking, using historical anecdote to substantiate the argument for obedience; much, much gentler in tone than some we have seen, but still the emphasis is on the negative.

81:1 LA MENATSE'ACH AL HA GITIYT LE ASAPH

לַמְנַצֵּחַ עַל הַגִּתִּית לְאָסָף

KJ (King James translation): (To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of Asaph.) Sing aloud unto God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob.

BN (BibleNet translation): For the Artistic Director. For the olive-harvest celebrations. Copy for the library.

HA GITIYT: See my detailed notes on this at Psalm 8:1; but in brief: it is almost certainly not a musical instrument, nor the name of a melody. A GAT is an olive-orchard, whence my hypothesis.

Everything thus far in Book 3 has been "for Asaph" - for which or what or whom see my previous notes. You may well laugh at my rendition here, but it is just as plausible as any of the others (and see my notes at verse 6).

Once again KJ has merged verse 1 into the title, moving its verse numbers back accordingly.

81:2 HARNIYNU L'ELOHIM UZENU HARIY'U L'ELOHEY YA'AKOV

הַרְנִינוּ לֵאלֹהִים עוּזֵּנוּ הָרִיעוּ לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב

KJ (81:1): as above

BN: Let us dance our joy in Elohim with all our strength; shout out to the gods of Ya'akov.

HARNIYNU... HARIY'U: Not quite homophones, but certainly an echoing of sounds is intended. The first is from the root that gives RANANA, famliar to most Jews from Hava Nagila, and is always a call to get up, form a circle, hands on shoulders, and let's dance. Will they dance in silence while the orchestra plays the melody? Not a chance. HARIY'U doesn't just invite them to sing, but to blast out the words. You can see why I have translated GITIYT as the olive-harvest.

ELOHIM yet again, not YHVH. And note, at its second usage in the verse, that it is unquestionably plural.

It always intrigues me that sometimes he is named Ya'akov, and sometimes Yisra-El (see Genesis 32:28/29), and sometimes both (see verse 4 below), without it ever being obvious why - why in this particular case; I can find no explanation for this in any of the Rabbinic writings of the last two thousand years.

81:3 SE'U ZIMRAH U TENU TOPH KINOR NA'IM IM NAVEL

שְׂאוּ זִמְרָה וּתְנוּ תֹף כִּנּוֹר נָעִים עִם נָבֶל

KJ (81:2): Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery.

BN: Take up the melody, and sound the timbrel, the sweet harp with the psaltery...

Can we assume that this would have been orchestrated in such a way that the "chazan", the "lead singer", became the MC, and this is a libretto created for the introducing of the soloists? If so, I imagine the line playing out over many minutes and each group of players either stepping down from the orchestra stalls, instruments in hands, to join the dancers, or with the instruments too large and heavy to carry simply taking a moment to lead the playing, or standing to receive applause. Many of these instruments will be played by female dancers who are the official "priestesses" of the Temple and orchestra, rather than being the generality of women who are in the congregation (cf 2 Samuel 6:5 for a brief example, 6:12-16 for a clearer indication of why the solemn religionists like Michal found this sort of behaviour unacceptable - but note that it remains the tradition for the night of Purim especially, and also Simchat Torah).

SE'U ZIMRAH ... and the full orchestra plays.

U TENO TOPH ... the drummer takes a bow (probably not named, this isn't a rock concert or a jazz festival!).

KINOR... the harpist can do no more than nod, or stop playing and stand to bow.

IM NAVEL ... and on Psaltery (what is Psaltery anyway? see my essay on the Musical Instruments of the Tanach.

81:4 TIK'U BA CHODESH SHOPHAR BA KESEH LE YOM CHAGENU

תִּקְעוּ בַחֹדֶשׁ שׁוֹפָר בַּכֵּסֶה לְיוֹם חַגֵּנוּ

KJ (81:3): Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.

BN: Blow the horn at the new moon, at the full moon for our feast-day.

CHODESH: The word is used to mean month, but it is more complex than that, because this is a lunar not a solar calendar, so each month begins when the new moon rises, and actually CHODESH comes from CHADASH, which means "new". HA LAVANAH HA CHADASHAH or HA YARE'ACH HA CHADASH would be the full expression - and on the same basis, the half-way point in the English equivalent should be a "fourteen night" not a "fortnight". But words get abbreviated in this manner, and everyone understands it.

KESEH: never have I come across this word for full moon before, and I remain to be convinced. My explanation of CHODESH does some of that, but not all by any means. Proverbs 7:20 is the only other occasion when it seems to have this meaning, but it is spelled Aramaically there, with a final Aleph rather than a final Hey (and I note the translation at the link as "mid-month" rather than "full moon", which of course is the same thing, calendrically, but not at all the same thing religiously).

KESEH (with a Hey) means "to cover", so this could perfectly well be a lunar equivalent of the YEVARECHECHA: the festival is taking place in the evening, and it is a fertility festival, so it wants to honour the goddess, who is the moon: if she is under cloud-cover... in which case it could be any day of the week or month, including the new or the full moon.

KESEH (with an Aleph) is a seat, a royal throne at Job 36:7, the deity's at Jeremiah 3:17, one like the one I'm sitting on now at Proverbs 9:14 and 2 Kings 4:10. We have to investigate these possibilities, but KESEH with a Hey, as written here, also makes more sense here.

And I am still unconvinced that it is the full moon (though most festivals honouring the goddess, and specifically the three Pilgrim Festivals, do fall on that date, because the moon is always full on the 15th, the middle-day of the lunar month. 15 is written in Yehudit as Yud (10) + Hey (5), using a decimal-columnar system just the same as ours in English. Yud-Hey spells YAH, the goddess of the full moon. In patriarchal Judaism, in order to avoid naming her, 15 is now spelled Tet (9) + Vav (6), and pronounced TU.

But if it is, do we then assume that the reference to it is because this Psalm has been written for, is being performed on, Rosh Chodesh - or on the eve of the full moon, a fourteen-nights later? And if so, why is it not part of that same liturgy today?

81:5 KI CHOK LE YISRA-EL HU MISHPAT L'ELOHEY YA'AKOV

כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מִשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב

KJ (81:4): For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob.

BN: For it is a statute for Yisra-El, an ordinance of the gods of Ya'akov.

CHOK: Chok is generally a man-made law, deduced from the text, as opposed to a MISHPAT, which is a law stated unequivocally in the text, and a MITSVAH is one that came explicitly from the deity, through the Mosaic Code - click here for a fuller explanation. I am rather taken by surprise to see KJ placing this in the past tense; if it is being invoked in the now of this performance, then it is very much still active in the present tense; and unless there is notification of repeal or amendment, these CHOKIM generally apply into the eternal future too. Or is this "past tense" because of Hebrews 8:6-13, in the "New" Testament?

L'ELOHEY YA'AKOV: 2nd reference. Is he a different concept of the (polytheistic) deity from Elohim or YHVH, or actually a different god altogether from those in the polytheon, or simply an alternate name? ELOHEY is plural, from Elohim, so this should really be translated as "the gods of Ya'akov".

And if it is a "CHOK" and a "MISHPAT", then presumably it can be found among the Mosaic laws: so which one? Given that the olive-harvest is in the autumn (click here), at exactly the same time as the corn-harvest, can we now deduce that this is in fact an aspect of Sukkot, and from that deduce that the reason for saying KESEH is that Sukkot begins on the eve of the full moon, but continues for eight days, so it needs a specific term to make clear that this could be any of the eight?

81:6 EDUT BI YEHOSEPH SAMU BE TSE'TO AL ERETS MITSRAYIM SEPHAT LO YADA'TI ESHMA

עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ בְּצֵאתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם שְׂפַת לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶשְׁמָע

KJ (81:5): This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I heard a language that I understood not.

BN (option a): This was instructed throughout Yoseph as a testament-of-faith, when he went out through the land of Mitsrayim, and I heard him speaking a language that I did not know.

BN (option b): This was ordained as an additional testament-of-faith at the time of the departure from Mitsrayim, but heard by the congregation in a language that I did not understand.

EDUT: How far do these Psalms follow each other in some kind of schematic way? There appears to be an overall connection - these are all "dedicated to" Asaph - but does it go further? I ask because the last Psalm was described as an EDUT, and all about Yoseph, and here are both the Edut and Yehoseph, together in the same verse. It could just be coincidence.

And do we read EDUT as the "congregation", or as the "testament-of-faith", which of course is what the "congregation" has assembled for, and the reason why the word has both meanings.

BI YEHOSEPH: I think the answer lies here. Because this is not Yoseph, but Yehoseph, which is a verb, not a noun. Did the Hey get in by scribal error, and the text is saying Yoseph in the same way that it says Ya'akov earlier - alternative names for Yisra-El (Great Britain, the United Kingdom, England etc, the Commonwealth....); or is this a known variant of the name (I have no knowledge of any other instance of it in the Tanach). Yoseph's name has been used in this manner in several recent Psalms, so it is possible. And there is also Yehonatan, the son of King Sha'ul and best friend of the holy David, whose name was probably Yah-Natan, biut masculinised into Yeho-Natan and thence Yehonatan, when patriarchalism Judaism removed the other gods and especially the goddess in order to give the Omnideity sole stage.

BE TSE'TO: And this too changes meaning depending on whether it is Yoseph or Yehoseph. If it is the former, then the Prime Minister is on tour, using the Egyptian language as you would expect, and the poor Habiru don't understand a word of it. But if it is Yehoseph, then it is Mosheh initiating this law - and actually, in all probability, given his upbringing in the court of Pharaoh as the adopted son of the royal daughter, the same statement probably applies: he spoke no Habiru either at that time, but only Mitsri (Egyptian).

BUT HANG ON AND WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Yoseph or Yehoseph, both from the same root, ASAPH, "to gather" or "to collect" (Exodus 23:10 places us at precisely the right historical moment for this new statute, though it is Exodus 3:16 that "gathers in" the congregation!). We are at the olive-harvest, gathering in the ripe olives, green and black. And this is a Psalm "LE ASAPH". Cf Isaiah 32:10, Micah 7:1.

And just to be clear: how do we get from this to the meanings of Yoseph and Yehoseph; we "add on" a prefix to make it Hiph'il. LEHOSIPH. When you make a large collection, things get added. See my note at Genesis 25:1.

SEPHAT LO YADA'TI ESHMA: A seemingly passing remark, but actually it has huge importance for we scholars and archaeologists. Most of the Mesopotamian languages appear to have been connected, rooted in Hittite in much the way that the Romance languages of Europe are rooted in Latin; but not Egyptian, apparently, which was as different as Basque or Gaelic.

YADA'TI: Past tense, first person singular. Very odd in the context. It makes the narrator a co-habitant of either the Yosephite or the Mosaic period, when this event took place... and of course, this verse is about bearing witness (EDUT), so maybe it isn't that odd after all! Compare AVADIM HAYINU BE MITSRAYIM in the Pesach (Passover) Haggadah.

81:7 HASIYROTI MI SEVEL SHICHMO KAPAV MI DUD TA'AVORNAH

הֲסִירוֹתִי מִסֵּבֶל שִׁכְמוֹ כַּפָּיו מִדּוּד תַּעֲבֹרְנָה

KJ (81:6): I removed his shoulder from the burden: his hands were delivered from the pots.

BN: I removed his shoulder from the burden; his hands were freed from the basket.

HASIYROTI: Thematically too, we appear to have gone back into the slavery in Egypt, which was the Psalm before last as well as the immediately last. And again, first person singular: this verse makes Mosheh more likely than Yoseph, but is the intention that we should imagine Mosheh as the narrator? Or the deity himself? The next verse will provide the answer.

DUD: The English ignores this, but the Yehudit can't. DUD comes from the same root as DAVID and develops into a range of seemingly unconnected words, from "uncle" to "beloved", from "trouble-maker" to "boiling-kettle" and "cooking-pot", though here "basket" is also possible.

81:8 BA TSARAH KARA'TA VA ACHALTSECHA E'ENCHA BE SETER RA'AM EVCHANCHA AL MEY MERIYVAH (SELAH)

בַּצָּרָה קָרָאתָ וָאֲחַלְּצֶךָּ אֶעֶנְךָ בְּסֵתֶר רַעַם אֶבְחָנְךָ עַל מֵי מְרִיבָה סֶלָה

KJ (81:7): Thou calledst in trouble, and I delivered thee; I answered thee in the secret place of thunder: I proved thee at the waters of Meribah. Selah.

BN: You called in times of trouble, and I rescued you; {N} I answered you in the secret voice of the thunder; I tested you at the waters of Merivah. (Selah)

MERIYVAH: But which occasion? The tale takes us to Merivah twice, the first at Exodus 17, before the giving of the law, the second at Numbers 20, a long time afterwards. On the first occasion (17:2) it is the people who test the deity, but at verse 6 the deity "stands behind Mosheh" while he taps the rock, and out flows water. On the second occasion, apparently, it is the deity who is testing the people - though actually it reads remarkably like an alternate version of Exodus 17, with one variant, which is also a bewildering variant, because in 20:8 Mosheh is told to go and strike the rock and bring forth water, but in verse 12 he is banned from entering the Promised Land as a punishment for doing so (thank the gods I am only a commentator and translator, and not a theologian!)

EVCHANCHA: Proved? Proof is a positive, and Merivah became a definite negative in Yisra-Eli theology. Mosheh was tested, and failed; surely that is not the message that the Psalmist wishes to convey. In which case, given that every one listening to this at the time would know the tale of Merivah, what an odd instance to select. Perhaps the triplet is intended to form a contrast: literal rescue, verbal response, denial.

81:9 SHEM'A AMI VE A'IYDAH BACH YISRA-EL IM TISHMA LI

שְׁמַע עַמִּי וְאָעִידָה בָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם תִּשְׁמַע לִי

KJ (81:8): Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me;

BN: Hear, my people, and I will appoint a time for you: Ysra-El, if you would only pay attention to me!

SHEM'A: And to throw in that word, at exactly that moment: the use of allusion as a rhetorical device, relying with total confidence that the listeners will know exactly what you mean, and save you thereby the need to lengthily explain it. The source-text is Deuteronomy 6:4 (which, if this reference is indeed intended, places a very late date on the writing of the Psalm).

A'IYDAH: The root is UD, but which usage is intended here? There is usually a sense of repetition, of returning to the same place, and, again, the adverb that means "again" is OD (עוד). But in the Hiph'il it means... oh don't you just love these word-games, or are they just coincidences... "to bear witness". Why? Probably because the time to bear witness in a court of law is appointed, with a summons or notification sent out, and ditto for Vidu'i and Selichot and Kapparah on their fixed dates and places and times in the liturgical calendar, repeated again and again, day by day, year by year. Cf Isaiah 8:2, Jeremiah 32:10, many others. So we can again see the word EDUT, which may have been the "congregation" or the "testament-of-faith", but which is also the appointed time of the olive-harvest, and in Mosaic times, in the desert, all this would have happened around the OHEL MO'ED, the "Tent of Meeting".

81:10 LO YIHEYEH VECHA EL ZAR VE LO TISHTACHAVEH LE EL NECHAR

לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֵל זָר וְלֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל נֵכָר

KJ (81:9): There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.

BN: No strange gods shall dwell among you, nor shall you worship any foreign god.

Once again the formal acknowledgement that the Yisra-Eli cult is not yet monotheistic, that it accepts the existence of many gods in the world, but simply insists that its deity be placed at the apex of the polytheon. However the previous "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:2), with its inference that you can have as many after me as you wish to waste your time with, is now supplanted here by the prohibition of worshipping them - or, at least, some of them: EL NACHAR is a very specific concept: there is YHVH, who is the head of the Elohim, and this is plural: NECHAR is only about "foreign" gods - Egyptian, Babylonian, et al.

81:11 ANOCHI YHVH ELOHEYCHA HA MA'ALCHA ME ERETS MITSRAYIM HARCHEV PIYCHA VA AMAL'EHU

אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם הַרְחֶב פִּיךָ וַאֲמַלְאֵהוּ

KJ (81:10): I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

BN: I am YHVH your god, who brought you up from the land of Mitsrayim; {N} open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.

ANOCHI: Again cf Exodus 20:2, the preface to the Ten Commandments; there YHVH says "אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם", using LEHOTSIY'A = "to take out" rather than LALECHET = "to walk", as here, though LALECHET is here in the Hiph'il form: "caused you to walk". But wait a moment: is it in the Hiph'il form? Is that HA prefix part of the verb, or a preposition: "the one who"? It can't be both. I think there may actually be a textual error here, and it should read HA HAMA'ALCHA - הַהַמַּעַלְךָ - "the one who caused you to walk up from...."

And why HA anyway, and not ASHER? Translate it as "the one who" and it makes more sense.

Having said which, it does look like the reason for the HA is to create an aural parallel, first with MA'ALCHA and then with HARCHEV - and if I'm right, and it should be HAHAMA'ALCHA, then this is confirmed too. There is also a third aural parallel, between HA MA'ALCHA and AMAL'EHU.

81:12 VE LO SHAM'A AMI LE KOLI VE YISRA-EL LO AVAH LI

וְלֹא שָׁמַע עַמִּי לְקוֹלִי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אָבָה לִי

KJ (81:11): But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.

BN: But my people did not hear my voice; and Yisra-El would have none of me.

81:13 VA ASHALCHEHU BISHRIYRUT LIBAM YELCHU BE MO'ATSOTEYHEM

וָאֲשַׁלְּחֵהוּ בִּשְׁרִירוּת לִבָּם יֵלְכוּ בְּמוֹעֲצוֹתֵיהֶם

KJ (81:12): So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels.

BN: So I let them go after the stubbornness of their hearts, that they should follow their own counsel.

A variation of that line in the Book of Judges (17:6, 21:25...), that people "did as they saw fit in their own eyes" - the description of a liberal democracy. Despots always hate it.

81:14 LU AMI SHOME'A LI YISRA-EL BIDRACHAI YEHALECHU

לוּ עַמִּי שֹׁמֵעַ לִי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְרָכַי יְהַלֵּכוּ

KJ (81:13): Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!

BN: If only my people would pay attention to me, that Yisra-El would follow my paths!

This started out as a happy-clappy dance song; I have to say that, were I among the dancers, listening to these latter verses would have induced me to sit out the remainder - which of course is precisely the complaint that the deity is making.

81:15 KIME'AT OYEVEYHEM ACHNIY'A VE AL TSAREYHEM ASHIV YADI

כִּמְעַט אוֹיְבֵיהֶם אַכְנִיעַ וְעַל צָרֵיהֶם אָשִׁיב יָדִי

KJ (81:14): I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.

BN: I would almost have finished subduing their enemies by now, and would be turning my hand against their other troubles.

KIME'AT: In modern Ivrit the word is used exclusively to mean "almost", which is how I have chosen to translate this; but it may be that this was not its original meaning here.

81:16 MESAN'EI YHVH YECHACHASHU LO VIYHI ITAM LE OLAM

מְשַׂנְאֵי יְהוָה יְכַחֲשׁוּ לוֹ וִיהִי עִתָּם לְעוֹלָם

KJ (81:15): The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever.

BN: Those who hate YHVH would dwindle away before him, and their punishment would endure for ever.

Change of narrator? But it goes back to the first person in the next verse.

81:17 VA YA'ACHIYLEHU ME CHELEV CHITAH U MI TSUR DEVASH ASBIYECHA

וַיַּאֲכִילֵהוּ מֵחֵלֶב חִטָּה וּמִצּוּר דְּבַשׁ אַשְׂבִּיעֶךָ

KJ (81:16): He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.

BN: And I would feed them with the fat of the wheat, and satisfy them with honey from the rock. {P}

CHELEV CHITAH: I presume this was added on because it isn't only olives that are harvested around Sukkot, but also the wheat and corn. But in the land of milk of honey, the CHELEV is also the "milk", and in Deuteronomy 8:8 the CHITAH is also the corn and the barley, and indeed the olives and the vines...

SurfTheSite

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