TheBibleNet: Psalm 91

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

No title, no dedication, though the Septuagint attributes this to David, as it does Psalms 93-97, 101 and 104 in this fourth book, leaving the remainder anonymous, as in the Masoretic version that we are following.

91:1 YOSHEV BE SETER ELYON BE TSEL SHADAI YITLONAN

יֹשֵׁב בְּסֵתֶר עֶלְיוֹן בְּצֵל שַׁדַּי יִתְלוֹנָן

KJ (King James translation): He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

BN (BibleNet borrowed translation): O thou that dwellest in the covert of the Most High, and abidest in the shadow of the Almighty;

BN (BibleNet provisional translation): O you who dwells in the covert of Elyon, and abides in the shadow of Shadai;

All my BN translations are provisional if they are not in green; generally someone else's translation as a holding-phrase, until I am ready to make my own version; though on this occasion I know that I am going to be unable to resist rendering "TSEL SHADAI" as "shadow of Shadai". And sometimes there are variations in those other translations that open entirely unexpected areas of discussion. So here. The black text is from a traditional Jewish source (click here), and it addresses the deity directly in the 2nd person singular, though there is no evidence for that in the text; KJ uses the indirect 3rd person, which is what the text appears to offer, albeit without a noun or pronoun to confirm that. So why does a traditional Jewish source change the meaning of the text? As we have seen with the blessings that end several previous Psalms, Biblical proto-Judaism always blesses that way, where the Talmudic Judaism of the last 2000 years is always Baruch atah YHVH, "Blessed are you YHVH", a switch to the 2nd person singular. So this is not just grammar, not just literature, but fundamental theology.

BN: He who sits in the secret place of Elyon shall lodge in the shadow of Shadai.

In both cases, the El appears to be missing: El Elyon being the deity who Av-Ram "met" when he came to Shalem (Genesis 14:18 ff) after the War of the Five Kings, and El Shadai the name he usually used, according to Genesis 17:1.

YITLONAN: The root is LUN, which means "to lodge", as in a caravanserai, or today a hotel. But this is in the Hitpa'el, the reflective form, and it is not at all obvious what the intention is: how does one lodge inside oneself? Perhaps it is reciprocal lodging, El Elyon and El Shadai: the two now friends, and happy to do sleep-overs: spiritually, I mean. In which case, is that the theological equivalent of a peace-treaty?

And if anyone can think of an equivalently alliterative phrase for SETER ELYON, I will be very happy to include it here. ("the illicit place of El Elyon" just doesn't work for me).

91:2 OMAR L'YHVH MACHSI U METSUDATI ELOHAI EVTACH BO

אֹמַר לַיהוָה מַחְסִי וּמְצוּדָתִי אֱלֹהַי אֶבְטַח בּוֹ

KJ: I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

BN: I will say to YHVH, who is my refuge and my fortress, my god, in whom I trust...

OMAR L'YHVH: Translated in the KJ as "of the Lord", in the same way that these Psalms are translated as "of David"; but the preposition "LE" means "to", not "of", as recognised by the standard Jewish translation that I have borrowed for my translation of this verse. The same source as my provisional first verse, and thereby an explanation of the use there of the 2nd person singular: YHVH is indeed being addressed directly. Except that he isn't - the final part of this verse confirms that, by using the 3rd person singular BO, rather than BECHA. So which is it? The next verse provides the pronoun that confirms the 3rd person.

91:3 KI HU YATSIYLCHA MI PACH YAKUSH MI DEVER HAVOT

כִּי הוּא יַצִּילְךָ מִפַּח יָקוּשׁ מִדֶּבֶר הַוּוֹת

KJ: Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

BN (provisional, traditional translation): That he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

My translation again from the same source, though I have lower cased "He" and modernised "thee".

YATSIYLCHA: Except that it still does not dis-confuse the confusion, because there is a 2nd person addressee, "he shall deliver thee". Is the speaker then addressing a congregation at worship? No - that would require a 2nd person plural. The self out loud? Oddly psychotic to address oneself in one's private thoughts as "you".

YAKUSH: A trapper, or bird-poacher; someone who hunts game. But as a poetic metaphor, any of life's pitfalls.

HAVOT: The double-Vav has been seen previously. (Put the word into the box in the upper left corner of the screen, and hit the magnifying-glass; the computer will hunt down all references inside this blog for you).

DEVER HAVOT: DEVER is indeed one of the words for "plague" (see Exodus 9, but more usefully my note at Deuteronomy 24:8). But it is also the Word (upper case deliberate) used for any action by the Elohim, usually rendered as DAVAR (see my note at Genesis 18:14). At the same time HAVOT plays with the root that also gives the specific name YHVH to the deity. So we have two completely different paradigms in play here, both constructed with the same words.

BN (alternate translation): So that he will deliver you from the pitfalls of life, the haphazard incidents of Nature, that come upon you unexpectedly.

91:4 BE EVRATO YASECH LACH VE TACHAT KENAPHAV TECHSEH TSINAH VE SOCHERAH AMITO

בְּאֶבְרָתוֹ יָסֶךְ לָךְ וְתַחַת כְּנָפָיו תֶּחְסֶה צִנָּה וְסֹחֵרָה אֲמִתּוֹ

KJ: He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

BN: He will cover you with his pinions, and you shall take refuge beneath his wings; his truth is a shield and a buckler.

EVRATO: Job 39:13 is the best place to go for this: all three constituent parts of a birds flapping parts:

כְּנַף רְנָנִ֥ים נֶעֱלָ֑סָה אִם אֶ֝בְרָ֗ה חֲסִידָ֥ה וְנֹצָֽה

KENAPH RENANIM NE'ELASAH IM EVRAH CHASIYDAH VE NOTSAH

The wing of the ostrich beats joyously;
Are her pinions and plumage like the stork's?

Note that, in verse 3, the 2nd person singular was being pursued by a bird-catcher, and the 3rd person singular was entrusted with saving him; now, in verse 4, the one entrusted is himself described as a bird, and it is the catcher who will be caught.

LACH: Why is it not LECHA, masculine, rather than this feminine?

TSINAH VE SOCHERAH: Cf Psalm 35:2.

91:5 LO TIYR'A MI PACHAD LAILAH ME CHETS YA'UPH YOMAM

לֹא תִירָא מִפַּחַד לָיְלָה מֵחֵץ יָעוּף יוֹמָם

KJ: Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

BN: You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, of the arrow that flies by day...

Use of the alexandrine again.

91:6 MI DEVER BA OPHEL YAHALOCH MI KETEV YASHUD TSAHARAYIM

מִדֶּבֶר בָּאֹפֶל יַהֲלֹךְ מִקֶּטֶב יָשׁוּד צָהֳרָיִם

KJ: Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

BN: Of the pestilence that comes in the darkness, of the destruction that overpowers the noontide.

KJ has added the word "nor" each time, which certainly sounds better in English; I simply point out that there is no equivalent of it in the Yehudit text.

OPHEL: Ophel is also the name of one of the hills of Yeru-Shala'im; but that is spelled with an initial Ayin (ע), where this has an Aleph (א).

91:7 YIPOL MI TSIDCHA ELEPH U REVAVAH MIYMIYNECHA ELEYCHA LO YIGASH

יִפֹּל מִצִּדְּךָ אֶלֶף וּרְבָבָה מִימִינֶךָ אֵלֶיךָ לֹא יִגָּשׁ

KJ: A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

BN: A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; it shall not touch you.

YIPOL: Was Ophel in the last verse intended as a sound-game? Impossible for someone at the Temple to hear or recite the word and not notice the homophone. And now YIPOL, a third entirely different root, and yet likewise homophonous.

MIYMIYNECHA: This is probably an entirely literal, entirely innocent phrase; but in this of all books we cannot encounter such a phrase and not be conscient of its resonances. See under Bin-Yamin.

91:8 RAK BE EYNEYCHA TABIT VE SHILUMAT RESHA'IM TIR'EH

רַק בְּעֵינֶיךָ תַבִּיט וְשִׁלֻּמַת רְשָׁעִים תִּרְאֶה

KJ: Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

BN: Only with your eyes shall you look and see the recompense of the wicked.

SHILUMAT: And then add one more word-game, because the seven hillside towns that conurbated to form Yeru-Shala'im included both a Shilem and a Shalem. I can easily imagine a rather hackneyed London equivalent, in which a man takes his bow to stratford, and tells his wife in a strong Cockney accent that her brother Ken's in town; and she wants him to do some repairs to the barns, and he says, "Do you think I am a smith"... the list of really bad puns could amuse me for hours, but I am sure gonna ditch that idea... Nevertheless, something of this order is what appears to be taking place throughout this Psalm.

91:9 KI ATAH YHVH MACHSI ELYON SAMTA ME'ONECHA

כִּי אַתָּה יְהוָה מַחְסִי עֶלְיוֹן שַׂמְתָּ מְעוֹנֶךָ

KJ: Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

BN: For you have made YHVH, the Most High, who is my refuge, your habitation.

ELYON: And still more, and repeated references - this, Shadai, Ophel, Shalem - to places and deities whom we associate exclusively with Yeru-Shalayim. Can we now conclude that the 2nd person addressee is the city herself?

ME'ONECHA: Huge problem this, for decent human beings. Crooks, parasites, pimps, wife-beaters, the whole crowd of the wicked, live in the same place and are going to be punished for their sins, punished by drought or famine, volcano or earthquake, plague or war. Why should I suffer for their sins?

91:10 LO TE'UNEH ELEYCHA RA'AH VE NEGA LO YIKRAV BE AHALECHA

לֹא תְאֻנֶּה אֵלֶיךָ רָעָה וְנֶגַע לֹא יִקְרַב בְּאָהֳלֶךָ

KJ: There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

BN: No evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your tent.

AHALECHA: KJ translates this as "dwelling", which suggests a house; but the word can only mean "tent", which is also a dwelling, obviously, but a very specific one, in this case the dwelling-place of the deity, which was originally the OHEL MO'ED; and it is fastidiousness with these precisions that enable us to date and understand the text.

As to the general statement in this verse, it is self-evidently not true, even deceitful, and simply underscores the problem outlined in my note to the previous verse.

91:11 KI MAL'ACHAV YETSAVEH LACH LISHMARCHA BE CHOL DERACHEYCHA

כִּי מַלְאָכָיו יְצַוֶּה לָּךְ לִשְׁמָרְךָ בְּכָל דְּרָכֶיךָ

KJ: For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

BN: For he will allign the stars in your favour, to guard you along all your paths.

MAL'ACHAV: Likewise these are not "angels", but "messengers", so KJ is superimposing Christian theology onto the text, and changing its meaning thereby. These "messengers" were originally the light that emanates from the stars in the night sky, and their "charge over thee" a reading of the horoscope; it is not known at what point the Archangels entered proto-Judaism, but certainly not before the exile in Babylon, in 586 BCE, and most likely not before the defeat of Babylon by Persia in 536 BCE - the Archangels are very much a part of the Medean-Zoroastrian cosmology.

And as to the general statement in this verse, it too is self-evidently not true, even deceitful, and simply underscores the problem outlined in my note two verses ago.

91:12 AL KAPAYIM YISA'UNCHA PEN TIGOPH BA EVEN RAGLECHA

עַל כַּפַּיִם יִשָּׂאוּנְךָ פֶּן תִּגֹּף בָּאֶבֶן רַגְלֶךָ

KJ: They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

BN: They shall carry you in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone.

91:13 AL SHACHAL VA PHETEN TIDROCH TIRMOS KEPHIR VE TANIN

עַל שַׁחַל וָפֶתֶן תִּדְרֹךְ תִּרְמֹס כְּפִיר וְתַנִּין

KJ: Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

BN: You shall tread upon the lion and the asp; you shall trample the young lion and the crocodile beneath your feet.

TANIN: is another seeming anachronism; the word really means "crocodile", not "serpent", and definitely not "dragon", though it came to have the same connotation that we now give dragons, the mythological beast that has to be defeated by the would-be king, as in the case of Arthur, Siegfried, St George et al. The original of this was Marduk, who bifurcated the Ophic serpent wrapped around the egg of proto-Earth, in order to release Earth into hatching: so the translation as "serpent" is, mythologically at least, just as valid as is "dragon"...

...but "trample under your feet" has nothing to do with Marduk and the Cosmic Egg - this is merely a baby crocodile, emerged onto the muddy banks from the waters of the river Nile.

Which of course raises a rather different question. There were no crocodiles in Yeru-Shala'im... though there are midrashim about "dragons", or Loch Ness Monster equivalents, specifically in the Pool of Giychon in Yeru-Shala'im...

91:14 KI VI CHASHAK VA APHALTEHU ASAGVEHU KI YADA SHEMI

כִּי בִי חָשַׁק וַאֲפַלְּטֵהוּ אֲשַׂגְּבֵהוּ כִּי יָדַע שְׁמִי

KJ: Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

BN: "Because he has set his love upon me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him on high, because he has known my name."

And yet again the Psalm confuses us with its choice of declension. Is this now YHVH speaking? Most translators add the quotation marks, as I have done, even though the statement by YHVH is completely meaningless, even in the context of the fantasies of this Psalm.

91:15 YIKRA'ENI VE E'ENEHU IMO ANOCHI VE TSARAH AHALTSEHU VA ACHABDEHU

יִקְרָאֵנִי וְאֶעֱנֵהוּ עִמּוֹ אָנֹכִי בְצָרָה אֲחַלְּצֵהוּ וַאֲכַבְּדֵהוּ

KJ: He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

BN: "He shall call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in times of trouble; I will rescue him, and bring him to honour."

Why will he need to call on you, if you have already alligned the stars in his favour, provided angels to protect him against all forms of wickedness, and given him the power to trample crocodiles? The previous sounded like a Ponzi scheme; this has now been elevated to "Buy one get one free".

91:16 ORECH YAMIM ASBIY'EHU VE AR'EHU BIYSHU'ATI

אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אַשְׂבִּיעֵהוּ וְאַרְאֵהוּ בִּישׁוּעָתִי

KJ: With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

BN: "With long life I will satisfy him, and make him experience my salvation." {P}

Who would have written a Psalm like this, and for what audience? The fact that it has neither title nor dedication suggests that it may not even have been a Psalm, but simply a poem that got added to the anthology at the time of the Redaction. And if it was originally a Psalm, I am trying to imagine the occasion on which it might have been appropriate to insult an audience with this kind of nonsense. I might even suggest that it could have been written by a non-believer, as a satire (see my attempt to do the same with the place-references at verse 8), and the Redactor failed to read the ironies, in particular mistaking the final verse for seriousness.

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