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
89:1 MASKIL LE EITAN HA EZRACHI
מַשְׂכִּיל לְאֵיתָן הָאֶזְרָחִי
KJ (King James translation): (Maschil of Ethan the Ezrahite.) I will sing of the mercies of the LORD for ever: with my mouth will I make known thy faithfulness to all generations.
BN (BibleNet translation): A Teaching Psalm for Eitan the Ezrachi.
EITAN: Psalm 74:15 has NAHAROT EYTAN - נַהֲרוֹת אֵיתָן - though that is unlikely to be the same usage of the word as here. See my notes on him, and on Heyman and Ezrachi, in Psalm 88.
89:2 CHASDEY YHVH OLAM ASHIYRAH LE DOR VA DOR ODIY'A EMUNAT'CHA BE PHI
KJ (89:1): as above
BN (provisional translation): I will sing of the pious followers of YHVH for ever; to all generations I will make known your faithfulness with my mouth.
CHASDEY: No, not "mercy", that would be RACHAMIM. Ardour, passion, intensity, fervour, any of these, and specifically the Chasidim, the pious followers - though that epithet name comes into being in the Hasmonean age; and anyway the second half of the verse confirms that this is about the faithfulness of YHVH, not his followers:
BN (preferred translation): I will sing of the passionate devotion of YHVH for ever; to all generations I will make known your faithfulness with my mouth.
89:3 KI AMARTI OLAM CHESED YIBANEH SHAMAYIM TACHIN EMUNAT'CHA VAHEM
KJ (89: 2): For I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens.
BN: For I have said: Faithfulness is built to last for ever; in the very heavens do you establish your steadfastness.
89:4 KARATI VERIT LIVCHIYRI NISHBA'TI LE DAVID AVDI
KJ (89:3): I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
BN: I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn an oath to David my worshipper.
KARATI: Who is speaking here? The author, or the deity? Clearly the latter, but nothing in the text established that (as opposed to verse 20, where it is made clear that YHVH is speaking). And if it is, should we then read the first two verses as also coming from the mouth of the deity, in which case my original translation of CHASDEY as "pious followers" was indeed correct.
89:2 CHASDEY YHVH OLAM ASHIYRAH LE DOR VA DOR ODIY'A EMUNAT'CHA BE PHI
חַסְדֵי יְהוָה עוֹלָם אָשִׁירָה לְדֹר וָדֹר אוֹדִיעַ אֱמוּנָתְךָ בְּפִי
KJ (89:1): as above
BN (provisional translation): I will sing of the pious followers of YHVH for ever; to all generations I will make known your faithfulness with my mouth.
CHASDEY: No, not "mercy", that would be RACHAMIM. Ardour, passion, intensity, fervour, any of these, and specifically the Chasidim, the pious followers - though that epithet name comes into being in the Hasmonean age; and anyway the second half of the verse confirms that this is about the faithfulness of YHVH, not his followers:
BN (preferred translation): I will sing of the passionate devotion of YHVH for ever; to all generations I will make known your faithfulness with my mouth.
89:3 KI AMARTI OLAM CHESED YIBANEH SHAMAYIM TACHIN EMUNAT'CHA VAHEM
כִּי אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה שָׁמַיִם תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם
KJ (89: 2): For I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens.
BN: For I have said: Faithfulness is built to last for ever; in the very heavens do you establish your steadfastness.
89:4 KARATI VERIT LIVCHIYRI NISHBA'TI LE DAVID AVDI
כָּרַתִּי בְרִית לִבְחִירִי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְדָוִד עַבְדִּי
KJ (89:3): I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
BN: I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn an oath to David my worshipper.
KARATI: Who is speaking here? The author, or the deity? Clearly the latter, but nothing in the text established that (as opposed to verse 20, where it is made clear that YHVH is speaking). And if it is, should we then read the first two verses as also coming from the mouth of the deity, in which case my original translation of CHASDEY as "pious followers" was indeed correct.
AVDI: Worshipper is correct, though probably not the intention here. Normally it is translated as "servant", but I wanted to draw attention to the ambivalence of this word, which can also mean a plain and simple "worker", or the fully-envassalled "slave".
89:5 AD OLAM ACHIYN ZAR'ECHA U VANIYTI LE DOR VA DOR KIS'ACHA (SELAH)
KJ (89:4): Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
BN: I will establish your seed for ever, and make your kingdom endure throughout the generations. (Selah)
So, after all the struggles of the early Psalms in this section, faith and trust appear to have been achieved, repentance and a commitment from the human side, and now, to complete the section, the Covenant itself is re-established, the promises made to the ancestors may now come to fruition - and a sense that permission is now being given, not to David himself, but through his son Shelomoh, to build at last the First Temple.
Yet when was all this written? At the time, as these two Korachite Psalms infer, or much later, historically retroactive, using what by then were the "ancient" Korachite Psalms to validate the new theology? My sense is the latter, but even then it is not certain when, because it could be after the fall of that First Temple, to teach the exiles how to return, or it could be 50 years later, when the Second Temple was being constructed on the site of the First; or later still, when the Omnideity of YHVH was being established by the Hasmoneans.
89:5 AD OLAM ACHIYN ZAR'ECHA U VANIYTI LE DOR VA DOR KIS'ACHA (SELAH)
עַד עוֹלָם אָכִין זַרְעֶךָ וּבָנִיתִי לְדֹר וָדוֹר כִּסְאֲךָ סֶלָה
KJ (89:4): Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
BN: I will establish your seed for ever, and make your kingdom endure throughout the generations. (Selah)
So, after all the struggles of the early Psalms in this section, faith and trust appear to have been achieved, repentance and a commitment from the human side, and now, to complete the section, the Covenant itself is re-established, the promises made to the ancestors may now come to fruition - and a sense that permission is now being given, not to David himself, but through his son Shelomoh, to build at last the First Temple.
Yet when was all this written? At the time, as these two Korachite Psalms infer, or much later, historically retroactive, using what by then were the "ancient" Korachite Psalms to validate the new theology? My sense is the latter, but even then it is not certain when, because it could be after the fall of that First Temple, to teach the exiles how to return, or it could be 50 years later, when the Second Temple was being constructed on the site of the First; or later still, when the Omnideity of YHVH was being established by the Hasmoneans.
(Though that repeated use of CHASIDIM would certainly put a smile on the face of the Hasmoneans! And see my notes at verse 7)
89:6 VE YODU SHAMAYIM PIL'ACHA YHVH APH EMUNAT'CHA BI KEHAL KEDOSHIM
KJ (89:5): And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
BN: So the heavens will praise your wonders, YHVH, and your steadfastness too, in the holy congregation of your people.
Whoever was speaking before, this is definitely the human now. Should we then read this Psalm as responsive: two voices, one representing the deity, the other speaking for the human, but alternating? And if so, can we go back to the title and deduce that the honour of ventriloquising the deity was bestowed on Eitan ben Heyman ha Ezrachi? And if so, was the responsa sung by another but unnamed soloist, or by the Korachic choir, or even by the congregation? This needs stage directions.
89:7 KI MI VA SHACHAK YA'AROCH L'YHVH YIDMEH L'YHVH BIVNEY ELIM
KJ (89:6): For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?
BN: For who in the heavens can be compared with YHVH? Who among the powers that be can be likened unto YHVH?
SHACHAK: Does not mean "Heaven" or "heavens" , or even "skies", but is simply the dust that accumulates out there in the stratosphere, and which forms clouds.
YIDMEH: Maimonides has some interesting things to say about this word in the opening chapter of "The Guide for the Perplexed".
BIVNEY ELIM: The Elim are the E of Einstein's equation: electrons and protons and dynamic impulses and kinesis, and all the other "forces" that "through the green fuse drive the flower" - which is to say, that move the Cosmos forward. So these are the deities of the planets, and the constellations, and quite probably the comets and meteors as well - but for none of them to be comparable with YHVH we have to have entered the Hasmonean age, because it is only after the completion of the Tanach, somewhere after 420 BCE, that the coup takes place in which Prime Minister YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens - who are the BIVNEY ELIM here - stages the night of the long knives, removes the entire Cabinet, and establishes himself as Supreme Leader, President For Life, and Secretary-General of the Party.
89:8 EL NA'ARATS BE SOD KEDOSHIM RABAH VE NORA AL KOL SEVIYVAV
KJ (89:7): God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
BN: El is dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by everyone around him?
EL: And yet, despite the previous verse, some of the Tseva'ot are still seated in Cabinet. Or is this the process of knifing: "I am all the other deities; they are henceforth absorbed into me. So you may use their names, but they are all, now, me"? We shall see.
89:6 VE YODU SHAMAYIM PIL'ACHA YHVH APH EMUNAT'CHA BI KEHAL KEDOSHIM
וְיוֹדוּ שָׁמַיִם פִּלְאֲךָ יְהוָה אַף אֱמוּנָתְךָ בִּקְהַל קְדֹשִׁים
KJ (89:5): And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
BN: So the heavens will praise your wonders, YHVH, and your steadfastness too, in the holy congregation of your people.
Whoever was speaking before, this is definitely the human now. Should we then read this Psalm as responsive: two voices, one representing the deity, the other speaking for the human, but alternating? And if so, can we go back to the title and deduce that the honour of ventriloquising the deity was bestowed on Eitan ben Heyman ha Ezrachi? And if so, was the responsa sung by another but unnamed soloist, or by the Korachic choir, or even by the congregation? This needs stage directions.
89:7 KI MI VA SHACHAK YA'AROCH L'YHVH YIDMEH L'YHVH BIVNEY ELIM
כִּי מִי בַשַּׁחַק יַעֲרֹךְ לַיהוָה יִדְמֶה לַיהוָה בִּבְנֵי אֵלִים
KJ (89:6): For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?
BN: For who in the heavens can be compared with YHVH? Who among the powers that be can be likened unto YHVH?
SHACHAK: Does not mean "Heaven" or "heavens" , or even "skies", but is simply the dust that accumulates out there in the stratosphere, and which forms clouds.
YIDMEH: Maimonides has some interesting things to say about this word in the opening chapter of "The Guide for the Perplexed".
BIVNEY ELIM: The Elim are the E of Einstein's equation: electrons and protons and dynamic impulses and kinesis, and all the other "forces" that "through the green fuse drive the flower" - which is to say, that move the Cosmos forward. So these are the deities of the planets, and the constellations, and quite probably the comets and meteors as well - but for none of them to be comparable with YHVH we have to have entered the Hasmonean age, because it is only after the completion of the Tanach, somewhere after 420 BCE, that the coup takes place in which Prime Minister YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens - who are the BIVNEY ELIM here - stages the night of the long knives, removes the entire Cabinet, and establishes himself as Supreme Leader, President For Life, and Secretary-General of the Party.
89:8 EL NA'ARATS BE SOD KEDOSHIM RABAH VE NORA AL KOL SEVIYVAV
אֵל נַעֲרָץ בְּסוֹד קְדֹשִׁים רַבָּה וְנוֹרָא עַל כָּל סְבִיבָיו
KJ (89:7): God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
BN: El is dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by everyone around him?
EL: And yet, despite the previous verse, some of the Tseva'ot are still seated in Cabinet. Or is this the process of knifing: "I am all the other deities; they are henceforth absorbed into me. So you may use their names, but they are all, now, me"? We shall see.
89:9 YHVH ELOHEY TSEVA'OT MI CHAMOCHA CHASIYN YAH VE EMUNAT'CHA SEVIYVOTEYCHA
יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת מִי כָמוֹךָ חֲסִין יָהּ וֶאֱמוּנָתְךָ סְבִיבוֹתֶיךָ
KJ (89:8): O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?
BN: YHVH, Elohim, the Hosts of the Heavens, who is like you...Yah? And your steadfastness is all around you.
I have absolutely no idea what the construction of this verse is supposed to be; but it appears to be both a recognition of the polytheon and an attempt to monotheise them into the single YHVH. Very late date, if so. And Yah makes an appearance as well, completing the polytheos.
89:10 ATAH MOSHEL BE GE'UT HA YAM BE SO GALAV ATAH TESHABCHEM
אַתָּה מוֹשֵׁל בְּגֵאוּת הַיָּם בְּשׂוֹא גַלָּיו אַתָּה תְשַׁבְּחֵם
KJ (89:9): Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.
BN: You rule the proud swelling of the sea; when its waves arise, you still them.
More monotheisation. There had been a sea-god for millennia - see my notes in various places, but first look at the next verse, where she enters stage right in the Yehudit.
89:11 ATAH DIKI'TA CHE CHALAL RAHAV BIZRO'A UZCHA PIZARTA OYEVEYCHA
אַתָּה דִכִּאתָ כֶחָלָל רָהַב בִּזְרוֹעַ עֻזְּךָ פִּזַּרְתָּ אוֹיְבֶיךָ
KJ (89:10): Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.
BN: You crushed Rahav, as one who is slain; you scattered your enemies with the strength of your arm.
RAHAV: See my note to Psalm 87:9, where she also got a significant mention; but mostly my notes to RACHAV.
CHALAL: Meaning "slain" or "slaughtered", though in Temple slaughter, to make it kosher, the word used is Shechitah, not Chalal. I mention this only because the Moslem equivalent is usually written as Halal, and I am wondering if it isn't actually pronounced Chalal, but we Europeans always mispronounce foreign words: and if it is, is it the equivalent of Chalal, or of Shechitah, or is there a second word in the Moslem lexicon as well? (and of course it may just be pure coincidence).
UZCHA: Isn't really "a strong arm", because no arm gets mentioned in the Yehudit, and if it did, it would be an allusion to the YAD CHAZAKAH, the "strong hand", and the ZERO'A NETUYAH, "the outstretched arm", with which YHVH is described as beinging the Beney Yisra-El out of Mitsrayim in Deuteronomy 26:8, and again in Psalm 136:12. See verse 14, below.
89:12 LECHA SHAMAYIM APH LECHA ARETS TEVEL U MELO'AH ATAH YESADETAM
לְךָ שָׁמַיִם אַף לְךָ אָרֶץ תֵּבֵל וּמְלֹאָהּ אַתָּה יְסַדְתָּם
KJ (89:11): The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
BN: Yours are the heavens, yours also the Earth; the world and all its fullness, you were the founder of them.
89:13 TSAPHON VE YAMIN ATAH VERA'TAM TAVOR VE CHERMON BE SHIMCHA YERANENU
צָפוֹן וְיָמִין אַתָּה בְרָאתָם תָּבוֹר וְחֶרְמוֹן בְּשִׁמְךָ יְרַנֵּנוּ
KJ (89:12): The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.
BN: The north and the south, you created them; Tavor and Chermon rejoice in your name.
YAMIN: We are more accustomed to either NEGEV or DAROM for "south", and YAMIN as "right" (in the directional, not the moral, sense), which should make YAMIN "east"; but the logic of the phrase says that "north-south" must be its intention here. Interesting though, adding an aspect to the Bin-Yamin, the "beloved son", the "right-hand man". A Bin-Yamin thus becomes "the son of the south", and of course it is through the south that the sun passes on its daily journey, and its lowest point in that southern sky, December 21st in our calendar, December 25th in the Gregorian Christian, is the day on which the "the beloved son" is reborn each year, in that most southerly of all Yehudan towns, Beit Lechem Ephratah.
TAVOR: Mount Tabor.
CHERMON: Mount Hermon.
89:14 LECHA ZERO'A IM GEVURAH TA'OZ YADCHA TARUM YEMIYNECHA
לְךָ זְרוֹעַ עִם גְּבוּרָה תָּעֹז יָדְךָ תָּרוּם יְמִינֶךָ
KJ (89:13): Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand.
BN: To you is an arm with great power; your hand is strong, and your right hand is exalted.
ZERO'A: The confirmation that we need to rethink verse 11.
YEMIYNECHA: and there, immediately afterwards, is that "right hand man", confirming my interpretation of the last verse.
89:15 TSEDEK U MISHPAT MECHON KIS'ECHA CHESED VE EMET YEKADMU PHANEYCHA
צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאֶךָ חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת יְקַדְּמוּ פָנֶיךָ
KJ (89:14): Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
BN: Righteousness and justice are the dwelling-place of your throne; piety and truth go before you.
Metaphysical abstractions of this kind, expressed in this manner, do not enter the human world until the 6th century BCE. So, again, we can see the ancient beliefs in process of updating, bringing the mythological age into line with the metaphysical.
89:16 ASHREY HA AM YOD'EY TERU'AH YHVH BE OR PANEYCHA YEHALECHUN
אַשְׁרֵי הָעָם יוֹדְעֵי תְרוּעָה יְהוָה בְּאוֹר פָּנֶיךָ יְהַלֵּכוּן
KJ (89:15): Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance.
BN: Happy is the people that knows the trumpet-call of YHVH; they walk in the light of your countenance.
ASHREY: And in a somewhat reduced and diminished manner, mummy-moon gets a passing mention too: Asherah-Sarai-Sarah, as you prefer: the fertility down here on Earth.
TERU'AH: "joyful shout", "joyful sound", both coming from the human throat; but surely the TERU'AH comes from the ram's horn, blown through the human lips?
BE OR PHANEYCHA: And if "the beloved son" is also the southern sky, then the "blessed father" must be the sun itself, "turning his face to shine on us", as in the Yevarechecha itself. The phrase is probably best known from the liturgical hymn SIM SHALOM, the 19th of the 18 blessings of the Amidah (homework: look up for yourself why that last statement is entirely correct); and by no coincidence, Sim Shalom in the liturgy is the blessing that prepares the congregation for... the Yevarechecha.
89:17 BE SHIMCHA YEGIYLUN KOL HA YOM U VE TSIDKAT'CHA YARUMU
בְּשִׁמְךָ יְגִילוּן כָּל הַיּוֹם וּבְצִדְקָתְךָ יָרוּמוּ
KJ (89:16): In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.
BN: They rejoice in your name all day long; and through your righteousness are they exalted.
89:18 KI TIPH'ERET UZAMO ATAH U VIRTSONCHA TARIYM KARNENU
כִּי תִפְאֶרֶת עֻזָּמוֹ אָתָּה וּבִרְצֹנְךָ תָּרִים קַרְנֵנוּ
KJ (89:17): For thou art the glory of their strength: and in thy favour our horn shall be exalted.
BN: For you are the glory of their strength; and in your favour our horn is exalted.
TIPH'ERET: The "splendour" of the Zohar in Kabbalistic Judaism.
89:19 KI L'YHVH MAGINENU VE LIKDOSH YISRA-EL MALKENU
כִּי לַיהוָה מָגִנֵּנוּ וְלִקְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְכֵּנוּ
KJ (89:18): For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
BN: For our shield belongs to YHVH, and the Holy One of Yisra-El is our king.
And finally, bringing together "the beloved sun" and the "sun-father" in a single, combining image, the father here is the shield, and the Yehudit word here is MAGEN, which takes us directly to that important feature of the northern sky, the only quarter in which the sun never makes an appearance, and doesn't need to, because "the beloved son" rules there, Yedid-Yah or David; and his "star" (Lyra as far as the constellations are concerned) is the MAGEN DAVID, the "shield of David".
What does that do for our efforts to date this? The naming of Eitan, based on the Chronicles and other references, and now the apparent naming of David (but see the next verses, which confirm it), appears to set the original in the Solomonic age, and we are reading the version redacted later on to make YHVH supreme (and in that context: the king would have been very flattered by the careful courtliness of these verses, which contrive to find language that corroborates the sacred kingship through the very statement of covenant-commitment to the deity).
89:20 AZ DIBARTA VE CHAZON LA CHASIYDEYCHA VA TO'MER SHIVIYTI EZER AL GIBOR HARIYMOTI VACHUR ME AM
KJ (89:19): Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
BN: Then you spoke in a vision to your pious followers, and said: "I have provided the means of help to one who is mighty; {N} I have raised up one chosen by his own people...
And if you were left in doubt about my final statement in the note to the last verse, here it is, stated explicitly. And named, in the next verse.
89:21 MATSA'TI DAVID AVDI BE SHEMEN KADSHI MESHACHTIYV
KJ (89:20): I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
BN: I have found David my servant; with my holy oil I anointed him.
I have commented before that kings in Yisra-El were anointed in this manner, not crowned like our modern monarchs. This is significant to Christians, who might like to crosscheck Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50 and John 12:1–8, all of which tell essentially the same story.
MESHACHTIYV: Now why do I think this is MESHACHTIYV and not MESHACHTAV? We have witnessed this problem over words ending Yud-Vav many times, and sometimes they go one way, sometimes the other, and no one yet has come up with a convincing explanation of why; and sometimes, like now, of which.
Note that MESHACHTIYV is connected to the root that yields MASHIYACH, not MOSHI'A.
89:22 ASHER YADI TIKON IMO APH ZERO'I TE'AMTSENU
KJ (89:21): With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
BN: With whom my hand shall be established; my arm too shall strengthen him.
So we see the connection that is so often made, but never this explicitly. The deity achieves his wonders with "a strong hand" and "an outstretched arm"; the right hand, not the left, because the right hand is the Yamin; and now he appoints David as king to be his "right hand man" on Earth, and in Yeru-Shala'im, which is in the tribal territory of Bin-Yamin.
89:23 LO YASI OYEV BO U VEN AVLAH LO YE'ANENU
KJ (89:22): The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
BN: The enemy shall not exact from him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
YASI: Lots of possibilities for translating this: things that get "lifted up", including the head, the eyes, the voice, and even a NASI or "prince", one who gets lifted up from the ordinary folk to be chosen for a leader: things that get "taken", including one's sins away, or a wife in marriage, or even the sum in a census. Gesenius has 3 full pages on this, and 2 columns per page; I recommend you to look there.
89:20 AZ DIBARTA VE CHAZON LA CHASIYDEYCHA VA TO'MER SHIVIYTI EZER AL GIBOR HARIYMOTI VACHUR ME AM
אָז דִּבַּרְתָּ בְחָזוֹן לַחֲסִידֶיךָ וַתֹּאמֶר שִׁוִּיתִי עֵזֶר עַל גִּבּוֹר הֲרִימוֹתִי בָחוּר מֵעָם
KJ (89:19): Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
BN: Then you spoke in a vision to your pious followers, and said: "I have provided the means of help to one who is mighty; {N} I have raised up one chosen by his own people...
And if you were left in doubt about my final statement in the note to the last verse, here it is, stated explicitly. And named, in the next verse.
89:21 MATSA'TI DAVID AVDI BE SHEMEN KADSHI MESHACHTIYV
מָצָאתִי דָּוִד עַבְדִּי בְּשֶׁמֶן קָדְשִׁי מְשַׁחְתִּיו
KJ (89:20): I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
BN: I have found David my servant; with my holy oil I anointed him.
I have commented before that kings in Yisra-El were anointed in this manner, not crowned like our modern monarchs. This is significant to Christians, who might like to crosscheck Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50 and John 12:1–8, all of which tell essentially the same story.
MESHACHTIYV: Now why do I think this is MESHACHTIYV and not MESHACHTAV? We have witnessed this problem over words ending Yud-Vav many times, and sometimes they go one way, sometimes the other, and no one yet has come up with a convincing explanation of why; and sometimes, like now, of which.
Note that MESHACHTIYV is connected to the root that yields MASHIYACH, not MOSHI'A.
89:22 ASHER YADI TIKON IMO APH ZERO'I TE'AMTSENU
אֲשֶׁר יָדִי תִּכּוֹן עִמּוֹ אַף זְרוֹעִי תְאַמְּצֶנּוּ
KJ (89:21): With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
BN: With whom my hand shall be established; my arm too shall strengthen him.
So we see the connection that is so often made, but never this explicitly. The deity achieves his wonders with "a strong hand" and "an outstretched arm"; the right hand, not the left, because the right hand is the Yamin; and now he appoints David as king to be his "right hand man" on Earth, and in Yeru-Shala'im, which is in the tribal territory of Bin-Yamin.
89:23 LO YASI OYEV BO U VEN AVLAH LO YE'ANENU
לֹא יַשִּׁא אוֹיֵב בּוֹ וּבֶן עַוְלָה לֹא יְעַנֶּנּוּ
KJ (89:22): The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
BN: The enemy shall not exact from him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
YASI: Lots of possibilities for translating this: things that get "lifted up", including the head, the eyes, the voice, and even a NASI or "prince", one who gets lifted up from the ordinary folk to be chosen for a leader: things that get "taken", including one's sins away, or a wife in marriage, or even the sum in a census. Gesenius has 3 full pages on this, and 2 columns per page; I recommend you to look there.
With each verse that passes, confirming and endorsing David through the voice of the deity, not only is the covenant with the rulers of the cosmological and spiritual realm confirmed, but the Psalm also confirms the political realm, and this becomes effectively an Oath of Allegiance - compare, for example, the opening verse of the English National Anthem, which is not really a national anthem at all, except in the sense that the whole nation sings it at national events: but the words state the status of the divinely "shielded" monarchy, and swear allegiance to it. See verse 4, which established this theme originally.
89:24 VE CHATOTI MI PANAV TSARAV U MESAN'AV EGOPH
וְכַתּוֹתִי מִפָּנָיו צָרָיו וּמְשַׂנְאָיו אֶגּוֹף
KJ (89:23): And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
BN: And I will beat his adversaries to shreds before him, and smite those who hate him.
TSARAV: With reference to my comment to MESHACHTIYV in verse 21, perhaps the answer lies in the placing of the chirik (the dot beneath the Tav) there, the qamats here (the miniature capital T beneath the Reysh), below the penultimate letter: מְשַׁחְתִּיו and צָרָיו. But that can only be half the answer, because these dots and dashes belong to the mediaeval pointing system, and it, like my transliteration, was an attempt to make the words readable in the form in which they were already understood to be pronounced (but which understanding could perfectly well be incorrect).
I am unhappy with the translation of TSARAV as "enemies". There are numerous Davidic Psalms in which he rails against his enemies, but he always uses OYEV, never TSAR; these are really "the things with which I struggle", and might be people, or situations, or simply natural events such as sickness or drought. TSAR is used in this latter sense in Psalms 4:2, 44:11 and 78:42, and in the sense of general distress (the depression that accompanies the misanthropy of many of the Davidic Psalms) in Psalms 18:7, 66:14, 102:3 and 106:44. Having said which, Psalm 81:15 does use TSAR to mean the personal adversary, and it can be found with that meaning in Numbers 10:9, Deuteronomy 32:27, Isaiah 9:10 and Job 16:9 - though I will still insist that it is the distress caused by the enemy, rather than the enemy per se, that causes TSAR to be used there, rather than OYEV. A TSAR, for the information, is "a stone" or "a rock" (see verse 27), and also the English phonetic rendering of the Emperor of Russia, which was usually the same thing. See verse 27 where the transition is made solid.
89:25 VE EMUNATI VE CHASDI IMO U VISHMI TARUM KARNO
וֶאֶמוּנָתִי וְחַסְדִּי עִמּוֹ וּבִשְׁמִי תָּרוּם קַרְנוֹ
KJ (89:24): But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
BN: But my steadfastness and my care and concern shall be for him; and through my name shall his horn be exalted.
KEREN: see my previous note.
CHESED: Ditto, but here it is slightly different, an emotional, mothering intensity, rather than daddy pushing the boy to higher achievement.
89:26 VE SAMTI VA YAM YADO U VA NEHAROT YEMIYNO
KJ (89:25): I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
BN: I will set his hand also on the sea, and his right hand on the rivers.
VA NEHAROT: Or VAN'HAROT?
YEMIYNO: Go back to verse 13 where the YAMIN was the south, and through the image of the south became first the southern sky, then David, "the right hand" of the deity, his representative on Earth, in verse 22. And now it is David's own right hand that is being exalted: flattery again, of course, and no doubt the king was signing Eitan's contract renewal and pay increase even as he heard the première of this new piece for choir and orchestra. But also very clever use of language.
89:27 HU YIKRA'ENI AVI ATAH ELI VE TSUR YESHU'ATI
KJ (89:26): He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
BN: He shall call to me: you are my father, my god, and the rock of my salvation.
Psalm 95
TSUR: From the TSAR to the TSUR, from affliction to strength: very neat (as per my note at verse 24). The same phrasing is sung in the great hymn of Chanukah, MA'OZ TSUR, and in LECHU NE'RANANA, which is chanted every Shabat (and which is Psalm 95).
CHESED: Ditto, but here it is slightly different, an emotional, mothering intensity, rather than daddy pushing the boy to higher achievement.
89:26 VE SAMTI VA YAM YADO U VA NEHAROT YEMIYNO
וְשַׂמְתִּי בַיָּם יָדוֹ וּבַנְּהָרוֹת יְמִינוֹ
KJ (89:25): I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
BN: I will set his hand also on the sea, and his right hand on the rivers.
VA NEHAROT: Or VAN'HAROT?
YEMIYNO: Go back to verse 13 where the YAMIN was the south, and through the image of the south became first the southern sky, then David, "the right hand" of the deity, his representative on Earth, in verse 22. And now it is David's own right hand that is being exalted: flattery again, of course, and no doubt the king was signing Eitan's contract renewal and pay increase even as he heard the première of this new piece for choir and orchestra. But also very clever use of language.
89:27 HU YIKRA'ENI AVI ATAH ELI VE TSUR YESHU'ATI
הוּא יִקְרָאֵנִי אָבִי אָתָּה אֵלִי וְצוּר יְשׁוּעָתִ
KJ (89:26): He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
BN: He shall call to me: you are my father, my god, and the rock of my salvation.
Psalm 95
TSUR: From the TSAR to the TSUR, from affliction to strength: very neat (as per my note at verse 24). The same phrasing is sung in the great hymn of Chanukah, MA'OZ TSUR, and in LECHU NE'RANANA, which is chanted every Shabat (and which is Psalm 95).
89:28 APH ANI BECHOR ETNEHU ELYON LE MALCHEY ARETS
אַף אָנִי בְּכוֹר אֶתְּנֵהוּ עֶלְיוֹן לְמַלְכֵי אָרֶץ
KJ (89:27): Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
BN: I also will appoint him first-born, the highest of the kings of the Earth.
BECHOR: More careful word-play, and this one likely to please the king even more. The word-play is between BECHOR = "first-born", here (בְּכוֹר with a Chaf), and BACHUR = "chosen", which appears in verses 4 and 20 (בָחוּר with a Chet). Throughout the Torah, the first-born is always supplanted by the last-born, or the second if there are only two: Yishma-El by Yitschak, Esav by Ya'akov, Ephrayim by Menasheh, Zerach by Parets; and the original Bin-Yamin was himself the younger son of Rachel, whose elder brother Yoseph received no tribal inheritance. David was the last-born of Yishai's sons, and became the tribal as well as the national chieftain. So he has been "made" the first-born. And interestingly it will be his youngest son, Shelomoh, who will succeed him.
ELYON: Just as YHVH will become the highest among the gods and goddesses, so his "right hand" will become the highest among the kings. ELYON is not really the obvious word to choose to make this statement; except that it is, because David will be enthroned in Yeru-Shala'im, whose original chief deity was... El Elyon.
89:29 LE OLAM ESHMOR LO CHASDI U VERIYTI NE'EMENET LO
לְעוֹלָם אֶשְׁמור לוֹ חַסְדִּי וּבְרִיתִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹ
KJ (89:28): My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
BN: I will sustain my care and concern for him forever, and my covenant will keep him steadfast.
NE'EMENET: That much repeated "steadfastness", attributed to the deity, now transferred to the Mashiyach as well.
89:30 VE SAMTI LA AD ZAR'O VE CHIS'O KIYMEY SHAMAYIM
וְשַׂמְתִּי לָעַד זַרְעוֹ וְכִסְאוֹ כִּימֵי שָׁמָיִם
KJ (89:29): His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
BN: His seed too I will cause to endure for ever, and his throne for as many as the days of the heavens.
Indeed, picking up my note to verse 23, this could almost be imagined as an anointment hymn, sung while the king made the long walk along the "stations of the Cross", if I may call them that, the procession route from En Rogel at the base, to Ophel at the summit, of Mount Mor-Yah - which was a long walk in any circumstances, but slower for being formal, and so a hymn of this length would have been needed.
cf Psalm 61, which appeared to be a "coronation" hymn for King Yedid-Yah the Second, which is to say Shelomoh (Solomon).
89:31 IM YA'AZVU VANAV TORATI U VE MISHPATAI LO YELECHUN
KJ (89:30): If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
BN: If his children forsake my law, and do not follow my ordinances...
IM YA'AZVU: This deity is so pathetic, so sad, so lacking in self-esteem; why, at this moment, amidst all this joyful acknowledgment of him, his virtues, his chosen representative on Earth, when everything is complete and fulfilled, why does he have to throw in still another bullying Tweet, another finger-point at the media-cameras? Why does he have to spoil it?
89:32 IM CHUKOTAI YECHALELU U MITSVOTAI LO YISHMORU
KJ (89:31): If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
BN: If they break my statutes, and do not keep my commandments...
89:33 U PHAKADETI VE SHEVET PISH'AM U VIN'GA'IM AVONAM
KJ (89:32): Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
BN: Then I will reward their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with lashes.
cf Psalm 61, which appeared to be a "coronation" hymn for King Yedid-Yah the Second, which is to say Shelomoh (Solomon).
89:31 IM YA'AZVU VANAV TORATI U VE MISHPATAI LO YELECHUN
אִם יַעַזְבוּ בָנָיו תּוֹרָתִי וּבְמִשְׁפָּטַי לֹא יֵלֵכוּן
KJ (89:30): If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
BN: If his children forsake my law, and do not follow my ordinances...
IM YA'AZVU: This deity is so pathetic, so sad, so lacking in self-esteem; why, at this moment, amidst all this joyful acknowledgment of him, his virtues, his chosen representative on Earth, when everything is complete and fulfilled, why does he have to throw in still another bullying Tweet, another finger-point at the media-cameras? Why does he have to spoil it?
89:32 IM CHUKOTAI YECHALELU U MITSVOTAI LO YISHMORU
אִם חֻקֹּתַי יְחַלֵּלוּ וּמִצְוֹתַי לֹא יִשְׁמֹרוּ
KJ (89:31): If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
BN: If they break my statutes, and do not keep my commandments...
89:33 U PHAKADETI VE SHEVET PISH'AM U VIN'GA'IM AVONAM
וּפָקַדְתִּי בְשֵׁבֶט פִּשְׁעָם וּבִנְגָעִים עֲוֹנָם
KJ (89:32): Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
BN: Then I will reward their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with lashes.
UPHAKADETI: Intriguing how this is translated, given that the root is used elsewhere to infer positions of command.
AVONAM: What were we singing just a few moments ago: Chen, ve Chesed, ve Rachamim... grace, and kindness, and compassion... ho hum!
89:34 VE CHASDI LO APHIR ME IMO VE LO ASHAKER BE EMUNATI
KJ (89:33): Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
BN: But I will not remove my care and concern entirely from him, nor will I be unsteadfast in my steadfastness.
CHASDI: And this time KJ translates it as "lovingkindness", not"mercy".
Stated: the divine assumption that Man will break the covenant, and do bad things. Unstated: the human assumption that the deity will break the covenant, and do even worse things than Man can ever do. Not a good start to a covenant.
ASHAKER: I have been naughty in my translation, because ASHAKER is explicitly a "lie", not a "lack of steadfastness"; but it seems to me that an opportunity for word-play was missed by the author, and I have taken the liberty to edit it back in.
89:35 LO ACHALEL BERIYTI U MOTS'A SEPHATAI LO ASHANEH
KJ (89:34): My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
BN: I will not break my covenant, nor modify what my lips have uttered.
89:36 ACHAT NISHBA'TI VE KADSHI IM LE DAVID ACHAZEV
KJ (89:35): Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
BN: Once I have sworn by my holiness, would I really be false to David?
IM: Really means "if", though sometimes it is used to mean "with"; a full interrogative would require the definite article as well: HA IM.
DAVID: I wonder if we should be naming him, rather than translating him? Daoud anyway, is the correct pronunciation, not DAVID. "My beloved". (Yes, but the Redactor could never accept that. Because he is not the "beloved" of YHVH, but of the Great Mother, Yah - Yedid-Yah in full).
89:37 ZAR'O LE OLAM YIHEYEH VE CHIS'O CHA SHEMESH NEGDI
KJ (36): His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
AVONAM: What were we singing just a few moments ago: Chen, ve Chesed, ve Rachamim... grace, and kindness, and compassion... ho hum!
89:34 VE CHASDI LO APHIR ME IMO VE LO ASHAKER BE EMUNATI
וְחַסְדִּי לֹא אָפִיר מֵעִמּוֹ וְלֹא אֲשַׁקֵּר בֶּאֱמוּנָתִי
KJ (89:33): Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
BN: But I will not remove my care and concern entirely from him, nor will I be unsteadfast in my steadfastness.
CHASDI: And this time KJ translates it as "lovingkindness", not"mercy".
Stated: the divine assumption that Man will break the covenant, and do bad things. Unstated: the human assumption that the deity will break the covenant, and do even worse things than Man can ever do. Not a good start to a covenant.
ASHAKER: I have been naughty in my translation, because ASHAKER is explicitly a "lie", not a "lack of steadfastness"; but it seems to me that an opportunity for word-play was missed by the author, and I have taken the liberty to edit it back in.
89:35 LO ACHALEL BERIYTI U MOTS'A SEPHATAI LO ASHANEH
לֹא אֲחַלֵּל בְּרִיתִי וּמוֹצָא שְׂפָתַי לֹא אֲשַׁנֶּה
KJ (89:34): My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
BN: I will not break my covenant, nor modify what my lips have uttered.
89:36 ACHAT NISHBA'TI VE KADSHI IM LE DAVID ACHAZEV
אַחַת נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְקָדְשִׁי אִם לְדָוִד אֲכַזֵּב
KJ (89:35): Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
BN: Once I have sworn by my holiness, would I really be false to David?
IM: Really means "if", though sometimes it is used to mean "with"; a full interrogative would require the definite article as well: HA IM.
DAVID: I wonder if we should be naming him, rather than translating him? Daoud anyway, is the correct pronunciation, not DAVID. "My beloved". (Yes, but the Redactor could never accept that. Because he is not the "beloved" of YHVH, but of the Great Mother, Yah - Yedid-Yah in full).
89:37 ZAR'O LE OLAM YIHEYEH VE CHIS'O CHA SHEMESH NEGDI
זַרְעוֹ לְעוֹלָם יִהְיֶה וְכִסְאוֹ כַשֶּׁמֶשׁ נֶגְדִּי
KJ (36): His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
BN: His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne shall be like the sun before me.
CHA SHEMESH: I don't think this needs a comment does it? See my notes to verses 13ff. But then see the next verse, and my comment on the previous one.
89:38 KE YARE'ACH YIKON OLAM VE ED BA SHACHAK NE'EMAN (SELAH)
כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן עוֹלָם וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק נֶאֱמָן סֶלָה
KJ (89:37): It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
BN: It shall be established for ever like the moon; and serve steadfastly as the witness in the sky. (Selah)
And in a somewhat reduced and diminished manner, mummy-moon gets a second passing mention: the triple-goddess: virgin, Madonna, crone (see verse 16).
89:39 VE ATAH ZANACHTA VA TIM'AS HIT'ABARTA IM MESHIYCHECHA
KJ (89:38): But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed.
BN: But you have cast off and rejected, you have been angry with your anointed.
KJ (89: 39): Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.
BN: You have shaken off the covenant of your servant; you have profaned his separateness, even to the ground.
KJ (89:40): Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin.
BN: You have broken down all his fences; you have brought his strongholds to ruin.
89:42 SHASUHU KOL OVREY DARECH HAYAH CHERPAH LISHCHENAV
KJ (89:41): All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours.
BN: All that pass by the way spoil him; he has become an object of taunting to his neighbours.
DARECH: Why DARECH, and not DERECH?
SHASUHU: There is a dagesh inside the Samech which needs explanation. Usually it indicates a double-letter, which is to say: Yehudit does not have double-letters, but sometimes a sound gets more heavily emphasised, the way it would with a double letter in English. But this is not normally done with a Samech.
89:43 HARIYMOTA YEMIYN TSARAV HISMACHTA KOL OYEVAV
KJ (89:42): Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice.
BN: You have exalted the right hand of his adversaries; you have caused all his enemies to rejoice.
YEMIYN: That right hand again, but this time as a negative. Note that the text here uses OYEVAV, and not TSARAV (see my second note to verse 24). They are genuinely human enemies this time.
89:44 APH TASHIV TSUR CHARBO VE LO HAKEYMOTO BA MILCHAMAH
KJ (89:43): Thou hast also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle.
KJ (89:44): Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
BN: You caused his brightness to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
HISHBATA MIT'HARO: An odd sun-image for an earth-god, given that it is YHVH who is the sun-god - or is this a way of describing the shadow that occurs when the cloud comes over, and the deity "turns his face aside" (the opposite of verse 16, the action known as HISTIR PANAV, which will be stated in verse 47). Though the transfers that we witnessed earlier do allow David to have the sun-god's virtues in earthly equivalent.
89:46 HIKTSARTA YEMEY ALUMAV HE'ETIYTA ALAV BUSHAH (SELAH)
KJ (89:45): The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.
BN: You have shortened the days of his youthful vigour; you have covered him with shame. (Selah)
Still more alexandrines.
89:47 AD MAH YHVH TISATER LA NETSACH TIV'AR KEMO ESH CHAMATECHA
KJ (89:46): How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?
BN: Until what, YHVH, will you turn aside? For ever? How long can your anger go on burning like fire?
AD MAH: The English translation echoes Yesha-Yah, but AD MATAI, not AD MAH, is what he said - cf Isaiah 6:11. See my previous notes.
TISATER: See my note to verse 45.
The "narrator" appears to have changed again since the Selah-break; the imagined voice of the deity before, now a decidedly human "I": but who is he? Eitan the Psalmist speaking for himself?
89:48 ZECHAR ANI MEH CHALED AL MAH SHAV BARA'TA CHOL BENEY ADAM
KJ (89:47): Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?
BN: Remind me how short my time is; out of what vanity did you create the whole of Humankind!
KJ (89:48): What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah.
BN: Who is the man that lives, and will not see death? Who will deliver his soul from the power of the grave? (Selah)
YIR'EH now picks up the same aspiration; this is becoming a leitmotif of the composition - and it only occurs in the space between these two "SELAH"s!, so we can identify a formal musical intermezzo. This is amazingly sophisticated for the historical epoch (ostensibly the Davidic era, which was the 10th century BCE, but probably not earlier than the 7th century BCE for the version that we have).
89:50 AYEH CHASADEYCHA HA RI'SHONIM ADONAI NISHBA'TA LE DAVID BE EMUNATECHA
KJ (89:49): Lord, where are thy former lovingkindnesses, which thou swarest unto David in thy truth?
BN: Where is your former care and concern, YHVH, which you swore to David in your faithfulness?
KJ (89:50): Remember, Lord, the reproach of thy servants; how I do bear in my bosom the reproach of all the mighty people;
BN: Remember, my Lord, the reproach of your servants; how I do bear in my bosom [the taunt of] so many peoples...
CHERPAT AVADEYCHA: If Spinoza had written this, he would have been excommunicated. If a Christian hymn-writer had penned it, he would have burned at the stake for heresy and blasphemy. "The reporach of your servants". "You have not been faithful to your faithfulness". "You promised never to break your covenant - and then you did". "You complain about us; now it is our turn to complain about you - you who made us, as it is now demonstrated, in your image and your likeness".
But wait a moment. The verse is addressed to Adonai, not to YHVH; is it then David who is being told off, for his kingly failures? And if so, by whom: by Eitan, or by YHVH?
KJ (89:51): Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O LORD; wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed.
BN: With which your enemies have taunted me, YHVH, with which they have taunted the footsteps of your anointed.
KJ (89:52): Blessed be the LORD for evermore. Amen, and Amen.
BN: Blessed be YHVH for ever. Amen, and Amen. {P}
Note yet again the 3rd person intransitive of the blessing, rather than the 2nd person transitive we would use today.
AMEN VE AMEN: Not simply stating the steadfastness, but twice, just as in my emendation of verse 34. And see verse 1, which states very clearly what this Psalm is really teaching, and confirms it in this double-emphasis (even while it appears to cast some doubt on that of the deity!)
END OF BOOK THREE
89:39 VE ATAH ZANACHTA VA TIM'AS HIT'ABARTA IM MESHIYCHECHA
וְאַתָּה זָנַחְתָּ וַתִּמְאָס הִתְעַבַּרְתָּ עִם מְשִׁיחֶךָ
KJ (89:38): But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed.
BN: But you have cast off and rejected, you have been angry with your anointed.
Verses 31-33 were horrible; but then it seemed that the deity had realised his own stupidity, and changed tack back to the light and joy of celebration. It lasted just five verses, and now, even worse, the complete Tourette's; it's as if he can't help himself - and what is in this verse will continue for the next several, forcing me to withdraw my conviction that this would have served as a coronation hymn. Can you imagine! The king passing by on his slow donkey, the streets lined with palm leaves and great throngs of people, and the choir immediately behind the king, berating the loyal with these appalling derogations: the king would be overthrown in a riot before he reached the palace! Why, Eitan? Why not expurgate verses 31-33, plus everything from here until 51, and just end on a high note with verse 52?
MESHIYCHECHA: And note, yet one more time, that David is the Mashiyach, not the Moshi'a.
89:40 NE'ARTAH BERIT AVDECHA CHILALTA LA ARETS NIZRO
MESHIYCHECHA: And note, yet one more time, that David is the Mashiyach, not the Moshi'a.
89:40 NE'ARTAH BERIT AVDECHA CHILALTA LA ARETS NIZRO
נֵאַרְתָּה בְּרִית עַבְדֶּךָ חִלַּלְתָּ לָאָרֶץ נִזְרֽוֹ
KJ (89: 39): Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.
BN: You have shaken off the covenant of your servant; you have profaned his separateness, even to the ground.
NE'ARTAH: Another of those odd double-words that exist in most languages - like "bow"and "bow" in English, one of which fires arrows or becomes a tie, a symbol of rain-and-sun in the heavens; the other of which a performer takes at the end of the show. So we have NA'AR for "a boy" and NA'ARAH for "a girl", but these have absolutely no connection with the word being used here. "Shaken out", as the flax is at retting time (Judges 16:9, Isaiah 1:31); or as the inner anger is, in the form of a lion roaring (Jeremiah 51:38); or as Shimshon does when he shakes off the flax in the same chapter, Judges 16:20.
NIZRO: What crown would that be, please, KJ translators? He was annointed. And the NAZIR is about his dedication, not his ornamentation.
And if this were a coronation Psalm, the second half of this verse would have the about-to-be king running for cover, certain that hearing it will incite the crowds to riot! So: in what context would a Psalm like this have been sung? Remember: it is a MASKIL, a teaching-Psalm? But whatever and whenever it was, I still do not understand the collapse into negativity of these verses, even in a service of repentance, even in a ceremony of self-flagellation.
There is a syllabic rhythm in this verse which continues through the next several. It also alexandrines again, though with fewer syllables than previously; and the first word of each half rhymes, as is the case in the next verse (PARATSTA-SAMTA). Other rhymes too, MECHITAH with those two, GEDOROTAV with MIVTSARAV.
89:41 PARATSTA CHOL GEDEROTAV SAMTA MIVTSARAV MECHITAH
NIZRO: What crown would that be, please, KJ translators? He was annointed. And the NAZIR is about his dedication, not his ornamentation.
And if this were a coronation Psalm, the second half of this verse would have the about-to-be king running for cover, certain that hearing it will incite the crowds to riot! So: in what context would a Psalm like this have been sung? Remember: it is a MASKIL, a teaching-Psalm? But whatever and whenever it was, I still do not understand the collapse into negativity of these verses, even in a service of repentance, even in a ceremony of self-flagellation.
There is a syllabic rhythm in this verse which continues through the next several. It also alexandrines again, though with fewer syllables than previously; and the first word of each half rhymes, as is the case in the next verse (PARATSTA-SAMTA). Other rhymes too, MECHITAH with those two, GEDOROTAV with MIVTSARAV.
89:41 PARATSTA CHOL GEDEROTAV SAMTA MIVTSARAV MECHITAH
פָּרַצְתָּ כָל גְּדֵרֹתָיו שַׂמְתָּ מִבְצָרָיו מְחִתָּה
KJ (89:40): Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin.
BN: You have broken down all his fences; you have brought his strongholds to ruin.
89:42 SHASUHU KOL OVREY DARECH HAYAH CHERPAH LISHCHENAV
שַׁסֻּהוּ כָּל עֹבְרֵי דָרֶךְ הָיָה חֶרְפָּה לִשְׁכֵנָיו
KJ (89:41): All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours.
BN: All that pass by the way spoil him; he has become an object of taunting to his neighbours.
DARECH: Why DARECH, and not DERECH?
SHASUHU: There is a dagesh inside the Samech which needs explanation. Usually it indicates a double-letter, which is to say: Yehudit does not have double-letters, but sometimes a sound gets more heavily emphasised, the way it would with a double letter in English. But this is not normally done with a Samech.
89:43 HARIYMOTA YEMIYN TSARAV HISMACHTA KOL OYEVAV
הֲרִימוֹתָ יְמִין צָרָיו הִשְׂמַחְתָּ כָּל אוֹיְבָיו
KJ (89:42): Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice.
BN: You have exalted the right hand of his adversaries; you have caused all his enemies to rejoice.
YEMIYN: That right hand again, but this time as a negative. Note that the text here uses OYEVAV, and not TSARAV (see my second note to verse 24). They are genuinely human enemies this time.
89:44 APH TASHIV TSUR CHARBO VE LO HAKEYMOTO BA MILCHAMAH
אַף תָּשִׁיב צוּר חַרְבּוֹ וְלֹא הֲקֵימֹתוֹ בַּמִּלְחָמָה
KJ (89:43): Thou hast also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle.
BN: You even turned back the edge of his sword, and did not keep him upright in the battle.
Why that image? Because, in the context described, there would be no need for a "shield" (see verse 19).
MILCHAMAH: Does this refer to a specific incident? And if so, which, because there are no accounts in the Book of Samuel or in Chronicles of David falling down or sustaining a wound in any battle.
89:45 HISHBATA MIT'HARO VE CHIS'O LA ARETS MIGARTAH
Why that image? Because, in the context described, there would be no need for a "shield" (see verse 19).
MILCHAMAH: Does this refer to a specific incident? And if so, which, because there are no accounts in the Book of Samuel or in Chronicles of David falling down or sustaining a wound in any battle.
89:45 HISHBATA MIT'HARO VE CHIS'O LA ARETS MIGARTAH
הִשְׁבַּתָּ מִטְּהָרוֹ וְכִסְאוֹ לָאָרֶץ מִגַּרְתָּה
KJ (89:44): Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
BN: You caused his brightness to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
HISHBATA MIT'HARO: An odd sun-image for an earth-god, given that it is YHVH who is the sun-god - or is this a way of describing the shadow that occurs when the cloud comes over, and the deity "turns his face aside" (the opposite of verse 16, the action known as HISTIR PANAV, which will be stated in verse 47). Though the transfers that we witnessed earlier do allow David to have the sun-god's virtues in earthly equivalent.
89:46 HIKTSARTA YEMEY ALUMAV HE'ETIYTA ALAV BUSHAH (SELAH)
הִקְצַרְתָּ יְמֵי עֲלוּמָיו הֶעֱטִיתָ עָלָיו בּוּשָׁה סֶלָה
KJ (89:45): The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.
BN: You have shortened the days of his youthful vigour; you have covered him with shame. (Selah)
YEMEY ALUMAV: The English sends us back to NE'ARTAH at verse 40; but the Yehudit does not. Yes, "youth", and probably from the same source that gives ALUMNUS in Latin: that literally means a "foster-son". But there is no play here on NE'ARTAH or NA'ARUT ("youth"). ALUMAV is not the "youthfulness" itself, but the physical strength that goes with that time of life.
Still more alexandrines.
89:47 AD MAH YHVH TISATER LA NETSACH TIV'AR KEMO ESH CHAMATECHA
עַד מָה יְהוָה תִּסָּתֵר לָנֶצַח תִּבְעַר כְּמוֹ אֵשׁ חֲמָתֶךָ
KJ (89:46): How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?
BN: Until what, YHVH, will you turn aside? For ever? How long can your anger go on burning like fire?
AD MAH: The English translation echoes Yesha-Yah, but AD MATAI, not AD MAH, is what he said - cf Isaiah 6:11. See my previous notes.
TISATER: See my note to verse 45.
The "narrator" appears to have changed again since the Selah-break; the imagined voice of the deity before, now a decidedly human "I": but who is he? Eitan the Psalmist speaking for himself?
89:48 ZECHAR ANI MEH CHALED AL MAH SHAV BARA'TA CHOL BENEY ADAM
זְכָר אֲנִי מֶה חָלֶד עַל מַה שָּׁוְא בָּרָאתָ כָל בְּנֵי אָדָם
KJ (89:47): Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?
BN: Remind me how short my time is; out of what vanity did you create the whole of Humankind!
ZECHAR ANI: what is the grammar of this? ANI is nominative, but surely ZECHAR requires an accusative: in which case "LI"? Then is he saying "remember", or using the vocative and saying "remind me" - but that too would require an accusative (albeit a non-accusatory one). And if so, it must be intended sarcastically, which would then do the same to the second half of the verse, and thence my exclamation mark rather than the KJ's question mark.
And now look at verse 51, which has ZECHOR, and that is definitely a call to the deity to "remember". "Definitely", that is, based on the Masoretic pointing; but without the pointing they could be the same word each time.
SHAV is a grammatical oddity as well, the sheva leading to a final Aleph, but the Aleph unpronounced and the sheva silent; this then leads to BARA'TA, in which again there is a silent Aleph, indeed an aspirate Aleph: is this a word-game of the poet, which then challenges the composer, or a musical game of the composer, which then challenges the librettist?
Knowing more precisely who Eitan the Ezrachi was (see my notes in the previous Psalm for what we think we do know), or at least whether he was Beney Korach (orchestra) or Beney Asaph (choir), would be helpful. The impression is that he is actually both (a harpist and a singer).
89:49 MI GEVER YIHEYEH VE LO YIR'EH MAVET YEMALET NAPHSHO MI YAD SHE'OL (SELAH)
SHAV is a grammatical oddity as well, the sheva leading to a final Aleph, but the Aleph unpronounced and the sheva silent; this then leads to BARA'TA, in which again there is a silent Aleph, indeed an aspirate Aleph: is this a word-game of the poet, which then challenges the composer, or a musical game of the composer, which then challenges the librettist?
Knowing more precisely who Eitan the Ezrachi was (see my notes in the previous Psalm for what we think we do know), or at least whether he was Beney Korach (orchestra) or Beney Asaph (choir), would be helpful. The impression is that he is actually both (a harpist and a singer).
89:49 MI GEVER YIHEYEH VE LO YIR'EH MAVET YEMALET NAPHSHO MI YAD SHE'OL (SELAH)
מִי גֶבֶר יִחְיֶה וְלֹא יִרְאֶה מָּוֶת יְמַלֵּט נַפְשׁוֹ מִיַּד שְׁאוֹל סֶלָה
KJ (89:48): What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah.
BN: Who is the man that lives, and will not see death? Who will deliver his soul from the power of the grave? (Selah)
YIR'EH now picks up the same aspiration; this is becoming a leitmotif of the composition - and it only occurs in the space between these two "SELAH"s!, so we can identify a formal musical intermezzo. This is amazingly sophisticated for the historical epoch (ostensibly the Davidic era, which was the 10th century BCE, but probably not earlier than the 7th century BCE for the version that we have).
89:50 AYEH CHASADEYCHA HA RI'SHONIM ADONAI NISHBA'TA LE DAVID BE EMUNATECHA
אַיֵּה חֲסָדֶיךָ הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֲדֹנָי נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לְדָוִד בֶּאֱמוּנָתֶךָ
KJ (89:49): Lord, where are thy former lovingkindnesses, which thou swarest unto David in thy truth?
BN: Where is your former care and concern, YHVH, which you swore to David in your faithfulness?
To which the answer is: they are stated again and again in the opening thirty verses of this Psalm; which statement leads me to wonder, very seriously, if a mistake wasn't made by the Redactor, and an entirely different Psalm became added to this one, starting with the negatives in verse 31.
Or - given that this is a teaching Psalm - perhaps we should be seeing the contradictions as deliberate, as rhetorical, as dialectical and didactic, and then, as in my last note, recognising that this comes in clearly separate sections, like a symphony.
89:51 ZECHOR ADONAI CHERPAT AVADEYCHA SE'ETI VE CHEYKI KOL RABIM AMIM
Or - given that this is a teaching Psalm - perhaps we should be seeing the contradictions as deliberate, as rhetorical, as dialectical and didactic, and then, as in my last note, recognising that this comes in clearly separate sections, like a symphony.
89:51 ZECHOR ADONAI CHERPAT AVADEYCHA SE'ETI VE CHEYKI KOL RABIM AMIM
זְכֹר אֲדֹנָי חֶרְפַּת עֲבָדֶיךָ שְׂאֵתִי בְחֵיקִי כָּל רַבִּים עַמִּים
KJ (89:50): Remember, Lord, the reproach of thy servants; how I do bear in my bosom the reproach of all the mighty people;
BN: Remember, my Lord, the reproach of your servants; how I do bear in my bosom [the taunt of] so many peoples...
CHERPAT AVADEYCHA: If Spinoza had written this, he would have been excommunicated. If a Christian hymn-writer had penned it, he would have burned at the stake for heresy and blasphemy. "The reporach of your servants". "You have not been faithful to your faithfulness". "You promised never to break your covenant - and then you did". "You complain about us; now it is our turn to complain about you - you who made us, as it is now demonstrated, in your image and your likeness".
But wait a moment. The verse is addressed to Adonai, not to YHVH; is it then David who is being told off, for his kingly failures? And if so, by whom: by Eitan, or by YHVH?
But no, verse 50 makes clear that it is indeed the deity who is being addressed here, and verse 52 confirms it. What an extraordinary way to end a book of Psalms! The exact opposite of "praise". And what, pray, is the Psalmist teaching in a Maskil of this kind?
89:52 ASHER CHERPHU OYEVEYCHA YHVH ASHER CHERPHU IKVOT MESHIYCHECHA
89:52 ASHER CHERPHU OYEVEYCHA YHVH ASHER CHERPHU IKVOT MESHIYCHECHA
אֲשֶׁר חֵרְפוּ אוֹיְבֶיךָ יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר חֵרְפוּ עִקְּבוֹת מְשִׁיחֶךָ
KJ (89:51): Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O LORD; wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed.
BN: With which your enemies have taunted me, YHVH, with which they have taunted the footsteps of your anointed.
Note the use of the alexandrine yet again to make a split line, caesura and hiatus; coupled with an echo-line; the translation on this occasion tries to pick both of these up.
(And is it possible that what is being taught in this Maskil is: "how to use the alexandrine when composing a hymn"?)
The Psalm is unfinished, is it not? Questions have been asked, contradictions stated, concerns expressed, but nothing by way of positive response to any of them, unless we regard the opening section as having already provided most of the answers (but only most, not all).
89:53 BARUCH YHVH LE OLAM AMEN VE AMEN
(And is it possible that what is being taught in this Maskil is: "how to use the alexandrine when composing a hymn"?)
The Psalm is unfinished, is it not? Questions have been asked, contradictions stated, concerns expressed, but nothing by way of positive response to any of them, unless we regard the opening section as having already provided most of the answers (but only most, not all).
89:53 BARUCH YHVH LE OLAM AMEN VE AMEN
בָּרוּךְ יְהוָה לְעוֹלָם אָמֵן וְאָמֵן
KJ (89:52): Blessed be the LORD for evermore. Amen, and Amen.
BN: Blessed be YHVH for ever. Amen, and Amen. {P}
Note yet again the 3rd person intransitive of the blessing, rather than the 2nd person transitive we would use today.
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