ASV: "Cast thy burden upon Jehovah, and he will sustain thee: He will never suffer the righteous to be moved."
The NET Bible states that the Hebrew word translated "burden" (yehab) appears in the Hebrew Bible only in this verse; the singular pronoun "thee" (i.e., you) within the expression yə-ḵal-kə-le-ḵā indicates the psalmist was addressing his audience as individuals. While that may be true, one thing I'd like to do is explore a suggestion I once read about Psalm 55, namely, how David could have been addressing himself--he might have been reminding himself of the need to rely on Jehovah. Moreover, when we consider the setting for this psalm, it might illuminate David's reason for penning these words.
Psalm 55 is addressed to the leader with stringed instruments: the superscription describes the song as a "maskil of David" (possibly involving "complex antiphony"). Walter Brueggemann and William H. Bellinger, Jr. explain that readers encounter the traditional cadences of lamentation and complaint within this psalm (New Cambridge Bible Commentary on Psalms, page 250). Not every point that Brueggemann/Bellinger make salient pertains to this blog entry, but it's worth mentioning three prominent motifs contained in Psalm 55: the discourse of complaint, the language of petition to YHWH (Jehovah), and assurance language from the writer (David).
Brueggemann/Bellinger takes note of David's "candor" and use of hyperbole in Psalm 55 (page 251). The psalm is a personal prayer, but it's written such that others may rightly appropriate the words as their own. See Romans 8:26-27.
One thing that truly depresses David is that his intimate friend has betrayed him (Psalm 55:12-14). The friend practiced deception and used rank trickery to deceive David: this friend turns out to be Ahithophel, the king's trusted counselor. The hurt that David expresses in this psalm is palpable, heartrending, and poignant. Brueggemann/Bellinger insists that the song contains retaliatory language so that the writer wishes YHWH (Jehovah) would act to bring eternal harm on his former friend (Psalm 55:15). No doubt David felt great anger, and maybe he wanted God to retaliate against his new enemy, but I'm not sure if retaliate is the right word to describe his wishes.
Despite painful experiences and the use of potentially imprecatory language, David concludes Psalm 55 on a high note--he displays trust in Jehovah, and he instructs others to place their trust in the living God (Ibid.). See Psalm 55:22-23. Although it's grammatically clear that David is addressing others and teaching them via this psalm, I still find the idea that he is reminding himself to throw his burdens on YHWH, a plausible suggestion.
Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (The Book of Psalms): "The one praying now offers advice directly to the audience, but not about being betrayed by a friend. Again an abrupt shift in thinking takes the audience by surprise. The speaker is now back to assurance and the certainty that God will sustain and not let the righteous fall. One wonders if the assurance is really for the audience, or is it another way of convincing the soul that God’s promises are sure? It is the heart of what the person crying out to God is depending on — it is a wish expressed as an affirmation."
See 1 Peter 5:6-7.
Tuesday, June 28, 2022
Psalm 55:22: A Discussion in the Light of Brueggemann's and Bellinger's Commentary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-May/047566.html
Charles and Emilie Briggs:
"Cast upon Yahweh thy lot], cf. 22:9 37:5; an exhortation to take up the burden of trouble and cast it upon Yahweh, that He might bear it for them. This is the lot, portion, or way, assigned one in this life, however difficult it may be. He will sustain thee], give personal support in the trouble, enabling to endure it. This is enforced by an antithetical couplet, gnomic in character : He will not suffer the righteous to be moved]."
Compare Psalm 54:23 LXX; 1 Peter 5:7.
From HALOT:
* ְי ָהב: ְי ָהבor II ;אהבJArm.tb יהבאquoted as an Arb. word; Arb.
˒uhbat equipment; Brockelmann Grundriss 1:242i; Arm. lw. Wagner 120: ְי ָת ְב ָך
burden (Sept. μέριμνα, Luther: matter of concern) Ps 5523. †
That's one opinion and that's the point. They are all opinion.
I actually quoted 2 different sources, which both said slightly different things, but they supported the rendering "lot" or "burden." Admittedly, lots more research could be done on this point, but I disagree that everything is nothing but opinion. Life and language are full of uncertainties, but we do have good reasons to believe some things are true or probably true. All opinions do not have equal status. For example, flat earthers vs. those who do not believe the earth is flat.
But concerning language and the meaning of words, hapax legomena place us at a disadvantage, that much is true and etymologies often are uncertain. But I think there is good evidence that the psalmist likely meant we should cast our lot, burden, cares or anxieties on YHWH.
I never stated that "everything is nothing but opinion", but this is. When you have a word from a dead language that has only one occurrence I do not see how it can be argued any other way, unless you can prove an unbroken link of tradition, which we cannot. We simply cannot hang to much of any thing on it. I have said this before I will continue to until something can convince me otherwise, which seems highly doubtful.
Duncan,
You did say, "They are all opinion." On further reflection, it's not clear who "they" are, but I guess you meant those commenting on Psalm 55:22 although we've discussed this issue about other verses before.
Granted, there's no unbroke tradition to my knowledge, but the word might occur 1x in the Hebrew Bible, but then occur elsewhere in other texts outside scripture. I know this kind of thing happens with Greek all the time, but someone else would have to comment on the extrabiblical usage of a word. However, we can look to the LXX, DSS, Midrash, other rabbinic literature, and the GNT to shed light on how ancient writers understood a word. There never will be 100% certainty in this system: we're dealing with lingustic probabilities, but I don't think that's the same as mere opinions.
Lastly, even if the etymology is obscure, that does not mean the synchronic meaning cannot be ascertained to a very probable degree.
Another question that crosses my mind is what would an unbroken link of tradition in this matter look like, and why would it be necessary? Do any Hebrew words have such an unbroken link?
This article illustrates how some views are more tenable than others based on linguistic data.
https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/2/325/5900755?redirectedFrom=fulltext
"However, we can look to the LXX, DSS, Midrash, other rabbinic literature, and the GNT to shed light on how ancient writers understood a word." - that would depend on just when you think the Torah was actually authored, or any other biblical work. When were the Psalms recorded and in which language? There is clearly a level of opinion in the LXX even if it comes from a parallel source text, but can we agree that the source text was a form of Hebrew? Another point that I have said before applies to Hebrew unlike many modern languages. If you anchor your understand of a particular word to a different meaning some sentences have the flexibility to change meaning altogether. We cannot even know how the Hebrews tied types and trains of thought together to get a complete handle on what a context should look like. In short, we have no contemporary data for comparison.
Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian. We have some level of original source text for all. What do we have for Hebrew? To my knowledge, a handful of very short inscriptions.
DSS is interesting and some estimate particular writings withing the realms of its time span.
I have no problem with getting a handle on the fundamentals of the majority of the Greek texts, but to use that to dictate how Hebrew terms were originally understood is a whole other matter. It is clear in the NT that some Hebrew texts are appropriated, combined and reinterpreted. So where and how is the decision made that one verse has a midrash/pesher where as another verse is a straight quote? Many decisions are made to give an air of authority to the text that it does not claim for itself. I think what you call Judeo-Christian tradition.
A few clarifications:
1) I was not suggesting that the Psalms or Tanakh as a whole was written in Hebrew-Aramaic originally. No disagreement there on my end.
2) Where we might disagree is that I think we have converging lines of evidence to support ways of getting at the meaning of Hebrew words, but we have probabilities in general, not absolute certainties. So I think the examination of cognate words can help (i.e., words cognate with Hebrew), studying other Semitic language can help us to potentially ascertain the meaning of Hebrew words. And besides the other things I mentioned earlier, we have the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) and Latin Vulgate. Does this produce absolute certainty? No, I'm not saying that.
3) I'm also not saying that the LXX or GNT resolves all questions about the meaning of Hebrew words. We also have the Targumim to include in this discussion. But we don't have to know the etymology of a word to know what the word meant at a certain time. Etymology becomes murky over time.
Those texts and opinions are a world apart from the time and context of Torah. Two diaspora. At the time of Torah the etymology is very relevant. We have evidence from Egyptian slave dwellings of the actual pictographic script. Very limited but enough to know that the symbols matter and are not arbitrary.
2 Kings 22:8 demonstrates the divide from context.
The problems are easy to demonstrate.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/sheni_8144.htm
And I do not think this is a minor and irrelevant problem. We cast aside teachings that we do not even understand. But I believe that understanding is attainable.
For that verse a good place to start - https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/55/12/1080/407161
In Deuteronomy it is also used for a scarlet caterpillar that is clearly identifiable. However this is something else.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/14-51.htm
These commentaries are worse than useless as they assume it is just a ritual with no practical application.
John 9:3 demonstrates an exception to a rule. Sin and illness were linked in a way that goes beyond just saying that we die because of sin. Specific sin (ailment) had specific treatment. I remember how Egyptian medicine using such ingredients as dung was sniggered at as being ignorant witch doctoring. That is no longer the case as many of the treatments are now known to work. So not just ritual anymore. So the question is how would one treat the fungal infestation of a house whose walls are made from a plaster that includes the living active substances of cattle dung and plant materials that rot when damp?
To correct one thing I said above, I meant that Psalms and Tanakh were written in Hebrew-Aramaic originally: I left out the "not."
1) Are you saying that cognate words, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin texts tell us nothing about the Hebrew Bible? If so, I completely disagree. Jerome was very attuned to Hebrew technicalities, even if he did not get eveything right in translation. As for the Targumim, I think they're useful as well. And I'm not saying etymology isn't relevant, but it's less important than synchronic data and can even be misleading at times. Pictographs are also secondary IMO.
2) You say that "we" cast out teachings we don't understand. Could you give an example? Just remember that this conversation started with the question over how Psalm 55:22 should be understood and its use of a term that might mean "burden" or "lot." Are we still talking about similar issues or something else?
3) To me, the scarlet issue is not about lexical semantics, but something else.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/sheni_8144.htm
Look at it again.
I am saying that I have a good idea what a scarlet is.
But string - bird - oppressor????
We are not to follow the Torah? Not even sure what it is saying yet.
Jerome of Stridon in the third cent. Is a useful guide?
Remember this -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/jewish/2018-03-27/ty-article/why-even-some-jews-once-believed-moses-had-horns/0000017f-da78-dea8-a77f-de7a90fe0000%3f_amp=true
"burden" or "lot." - the first link I posted gives arguments as to why it does not mean that - but as I said, its opinion & Jerome in the third cent can only be opinion on text from 1000 years earlier has nothing else to compare with along with those other translations.
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/67843/who-wrote-the-aramaic-translation-for-psalms-and-when
Imo some useful guide to the Greek in the NT - "Simon the potter".
Sorry if I was a little confused, but in view of the links you supplied, I thought you were focusing on the scarlet aspect of the verse.
There has been a ton of research/writing done on Leviticus: I'm not saying that any of this work produces absolute certainty all the time, but I don't think things are as uncertain as they're being portrayed. It's a bit much to say we don't know what the Torah is saying yet :-)
Jerome's dates are circa 347-420 CE, and I made it clear that he's not a reliable guide all of the time. However, due to his methodology for translating Hebrew into Latin along with other things we can compare (the Vetus Latina), the Vulgate absolutely can teach us things about certain Hebrew words just like the LXX can.
I disagree that Jerome was confined to opinion when it came to the Hebrew text. After all, there was a textual tradition that existed in his day and before him. He consulted Jews and seemed attuned to various possibilities regarding the lexical semantics of Hebrew. Most people who do work in Hebrew don't merely rely on opinion: there is a reason the prevailing idea has been that the word can mean burden or lot, and that reason is not just opinion. But if some demur like Calvin, the demurral also is not just based on opinion.
Too bad we don't have the work Origen did: his hexapla illustrates the work that ancient writers of the church could do.
Textual traditions are mainly built on significant amounts of funding. We also have dark ages, right. Anyone looking back on the last two centuries would see an astronomical amount of research. But bursts give no evidence of an unbroken chain of evidence. One would have to wonder about many of the DSS texts in the light of an unbroken tradition.
Maybe asking for an unbroken chain of evidence is too high of a bar. Secondly, I'm not sure that we need an unbroken chain to get at truth, to understand the meanings of words, etc. Granted, some would agree with you that we cannot be sure just what Psalm 55:22 means when it speaks of casting a "burden, lot, gift" or what have you. And I'm not arguign for 100% certainty, but I just think a good case can be made for burden/lot/anxiety.
Post a Comment