The Rest of Psalm 16

There seems to be less disagreement in the commentaries for the rest of the psalm - except of course that Dahood has a third person singular pronoun instead of a first person pronoun for verse 7 (my heart, his heart), and verse 8 (his right hand instead of the usual my right hand). I guess one could ask who is on whose right hand? Well the obvious answer is that while in this life, the LORD is on the right hand, and in the eternal moment, we are on the right hand of majesty. I don't have access to the Ugaritic texts to see why Dahood chooses these pronouns - but מִימִינִי (verse 8) and בִּימִינְךָ (verse 11) have differing pronouns in the MT. So I won't divert myself from the more traditional parsing of all the other translations.

The next issue is - what is the import of the middle verses 5 and 6? Four images reinforce the Psalmist's confidence: portion and cup - belonging to the poet; the lot held by the LORD; the memory of pleasant places; and the beauty of the poet's heritage. Talk about a good thing.

The first image has an ambivalent word חֲבָלִים which I at first rendered as bindings - a word that could be both negative or positive. Yet I do not think the Poet necessarily holds up a 'fortunate' or 'providential' life - as if chance were the governing factor. The factor that governs is perhaps the agreement and consequent determination expressed in verse 8. Such an act of will, a miktam perhaps, confidence, commitment, trust, and counsel, learning, instruction in the night could be the heritage of the rich or the poor (if we must speak in worldly terms).

Here is the whole Psalm: - one day I will be able to do better with the etymological stuff - but translation and poetry - that is really difficult - too many conflicts both on the input side and the output side and a terrifying demand on one's memory.

1 Inscribed of David

Keep me, O God, for I trust you
2 I said to the LORD, you are my Lord
My good pales beside you.

3 Of the holy ones that are in the earth
Of them, and of my securities,
all my delight in them?
4 They will increase their hurts
hastening behind
I will not offer their drink offerings of blood
And I will not put their names on my lips.

5 The LORD is my inheritance and my cup
You maintain my stay.

6 Bindings have fallen to me in pleasures
Surely a beautiful inheritance to me
7 I will bless the LORD who advises me
Surely in the night, my centre instructs me.

8 I have agreed with the LORD
in front of me continually, even at my right hand.
I will not be moved.

9 So my heart joys
And my glory sings
Surely my flesh will live in security
10 For you will not abandon my life to the place of the dead
You will not allow one who trusts you to see a pit.

11 You will make known to me a path of Life, satisfaction of joys
In your presence pleasures at your right hand unending.

The Psalm begins where it started with words based on XSD (1,10). I replaced the translation of BTX (9) with security - playing on the modern idols of financial security (3) that I referred to in a prior post.

Psalm 16 - my goodness!

Protestants are always on about the non-relevance of our good before God. Is that what the bet verse is about? טוֹבָתִי בַּל עָלֶיךָ, tovati bal aleika, or in the vulgate: quoniam bonorum meorum non eges, translated as 'you don't need my goods'.

What good is this that is ours? It is, whatever we might think as pious and correct folks, nevertheless important to us. When my good is impacted, I respond, even with violence, whether of desire or of defense. It is good to me! It is not my righteousness - it might even be my unrighteousness, the old man, my second heart - as the sages say, the reason for the dagesh forte in heart. But this whole person is what God loves, so loves. And so do I. So tovati bal aleika is not a doctrinal statement of Lutheran protest against works-righteousness!

I passed over this phrase too quickly in my last post. My good - which is very important to me, is nonetheless, beside the good that God gives to me, not important - because God has given to me a good that is greater than my good, but he has made it truly mine - and that alone is trouble since I must in due course submit that gift also to God!

So how to put this across in three words (or 6) in English!

I suppose it is just as pious to declare God's good for me better than my idea of my good.

My good pales beside you.

This is I think, an answer to theodicy, with or without a doctrine of the age to come. We really have choice and we really must discover the chosen.

The tone of the Psalm is not then so much about a deliverance from a past or present crisis (Craigie) as about the deliverance in hope from the crisis of life in the flesh (Weiser sort of agrees with this in his long paragraphs). The rest of the poem must reflect this - let's wait and see if it does.

Inscription

J.M. Neale and R.F. Littledale have collected commentaries on the Psalms from primitive and mediaeval writers. Like Westcott on Hebrews (1889), the assumptions of Christendom are simply a given for Psalm 16. Every phrase, one at a time, is put into the mouth of Jesus - more than the writer to Hebrews even! It is simply assumed that this poem belongs to the Son in his manhood. It is a shock to move to Dahood and find that Psalm 16 as a "profession of faith was composed by a Caananite convert to Yahwism."

So how will Psalm 16 stand up and allow itself to be read in the 21st century - with new eyes? Or to be heard with new ears?

I begin with the inscription: מִכְתָּם לְדָוִד - miktam ldavid. There are three words suggested for the root MKTM: inscription related to KTB (to write), golden related to KTM gold and atonement related to Akkadian KTM to cover (not the Hebrew which almost sounds like English Cover KPhR). What kind of choice will we give to the poet or to ourselves or to our readers?

From gold, concerning atonement, through inscription, of David.

It has to be gold because it speaks (if silently) of ultimate satisfaction at God's right hand. Silent because such things cannot be spoken. Of atonement since it is about being at one, not being abandoned, not being subject to chance, not being without hope, yet it knows of such abandonment, chance, and despair.

But it is only one word. Some translations leave it as Michtam. Not very helpful. Craigie suggests reference to Jeremiah 2:22 translating - your iniquity is inscribed before me. Also noted are the other psalms with this title (56-60). I defer their discussion to a later unspecified date.

The next line: שָׁמְרֵנִי אֵל, כִּי-חָסִיתִי בָךְ. Shamreni el, ki xasiti bak

XSH - trust surely is the other side of XSD loving kindness - for I have trusted in you. Here are the words in that part of my BDB (without the vowels):

חסד verb - to be good, kind, noun loving kindness.
with yodh mater before the D, adj - kind, good,
with yodh mater before the D and a final H - stork - one who is kind and affectionate to her young and that same word can mean Yah is kind (name of the son of Zerubbabel),
and a rare usage: XSD as reproach (verb and noun) - but if you are reproached in covenant by God, it is an act of kindness after all for God is with you.

Then there is XSH - to seek refuge and nouns: XSH (only used as proper name), XSuT with mater, refuge, MXSH, refuge, shelter.

Maybe trust is a poor translation - too cerebral a concept in comparison with take refuge or shelter. Shelter implies safety and there is safety in loving kindness if the strength can be trusted. (Hah!)

So what about the verb ShMR? Seems more straightforward than XSD. If whoever has 'taken refuge' then that whoever should be praying to be guarded, kept, or preserved.

So not yet knowing where we will go next (except to the difficulties of verses 2-4), here is the first 'refined' translation: Keep me, O God, for I take refuge in you. But it feels too long so I revert to

Inscribed of David

Keep me, O God, for I trust you