Is the CSB an exact translation of the Bible?

Discussion: Psalm 23

Checklist for the study versionExplanation (which verses by whom?)
A. Who has what verses from the original text translated? On which Source for division into sections of meaning was resorted to?
Example: Verses 1-12: Anton
Classification according to Wolter 2007, p. 145 (Anton)

yes (ben)

B. Who has what verses again at the original text checked?
Example: Vv. 1-3: Philipp

A-E (Olaf, Sebastian)

C. Alternatives: Often words can have several possible meanings in a certain context. Have these translation alternatives been taken into account as fully as possible?
Example: Vv. 1-17: Daniel

yes (Ben, Olaf)

D. Sometimes text transmission and sentence structure allow multiple translations,〈A〉 or they are not directly translatable.〈B〉 Are such Cases of doubt with a footnote documented, and is the most likely interpretation in the main text?
Example: Vv. 1-12: partly (Emil)

yes (Ben, Olaf)

E. Is the study version text with comments and footnotes for the target groups understandable? Still need it explanatory footnotes / notes?
Example: V. 6: "After the meat" is still unclear (Friedrich)

yes (Ben, Olaf)

F. For each section of meaning: Were central concern (or categories) documented below the study version? (Example for length and style: Markus 1 # concern) If helpful, they can be briefly summarized here.
Example: Vv. 1-13: Yes; Vv. 14-20: Power of attorney is emphasized (Vera)

Trust psalm

G. What scientific Comments were used to control points A to F viewed?
Example: Vv. 13-17: Bovon 1990 (Heinrich)

Ahroni 1982, Alexander 1850, Age 2007, Baethgen 1892, Barré / Kselman 1983, Barthélemy 1982, Beyerlin 1970, Bonkamp 1949, Briggs 1906, Buttenwieser 1938, Christensen 2005.23, Clines 2007, Dahood 1965, Dahood 1979, Deissler 1989, Delitzsch 1894, Duhm 1899, Eaton 1965, Edel 1966, Ehrlich 1905, Fokkelman 2003, Freedman 1980, Fricker 2009, Goldingay 2006, Goulder 2006, Gunkel 1911, Halévy 1894d, Herkenne 1936 (Sebastian); Hossfeld / Zenger 1993 (Olaf); Hunziker-Rodewald 2009, Knight 1904 (Sebastian); Kraus 1989 (Olaf, Sebastian), Kissane 1953, Kittel 1914, Knauf 2001, Koehler 1956, Limburg 2000, Meek 1948, Milne 1974, Mittmann 1980, Morgenstern 1946, Mosis 1999 (Sebastian); NET (Ben, Olaf); Nötscher 1959, Pfeiffer 1958, Ridderbos 1972, Robinson 1999, Prinsloo 2003, Schmidt 1934, Schökel 1980, Schwarz 1970, Spieckermann 1989, Sylva 1990, Tappy 1995, Terrien 2003, Vogt 1953, Waltke 2010, Wegner 2008, Zenger 1987, Zorell 1928 (Sebastian)

H. With what others Translations has been comparedto find alternative interpretations or possibly copyright problems?
Example: Vv. 1-17: ES, ESV (Juliett)

1-6: ALB, AOAT, BB, BigS, B-R, CSB (Sebastian); ESV (Ben), EÜ (Ben, Sebastian); FENZ, FREE, Gerstenberger 1972 (Sebastian); GN (Ben, Sebastian); GNB, GRAIL, H-R, HER05, LUT, MEN, Moffat, MSG, NBJ, NCV (Sebastian); NET (Ben, Sebastian); NIV, NGÜ, NIRV, NL, NLT, NW, OAB, PAT, R-S (Sebastian); REB (Ben, Sebastian); STAD, TAF, TEXT, TUR, van Ess, Wellhausen 1898, Zuber 1986, ZÜR (Sebastian)
in places: HCSB, HFA, LUT, MEN, NASB, NL, SLT (Ben),

I. When were the following points checked? - Spelling, orthography; Names (Loccumer guidelines, God's name); other criteria; Detailed regulations; Quotation marks; gender equitable language
Example: spelling, orthography: 1/1/2015 (Philipp)

yes (Olaf)

J. Which Work steps, improvements or comments are missing still?
Example: Vv. 1-17: Note is missing (Ludwig)
ae.g. ambiguous tenses or prepositions, aspects, some participles (back to the text: a)
be.g. text corruption, figurae etymologicae, genitive and dative connections, historical present tense, introductory formulas of sentence sequences (back to the text: b)

Please enter the current status in this table. If necessary, more detailed documentation / discussions can be carried out on the remaining discussion page. See also: quality

SF [edit]

Hello Olaf, thanks for the improvements in terms of detail! I have a few more questions, which probably also come from the fact that I no longer have a complete overview of the psalm. Otherwise we will soon be able to mark the "other criteria" as fulfilled and improve the status. --Ben 12:41, May 2, 2011 (CEST)

I read an essay by Clines yesterday, "Translating Psalm 23". He mentions 20 points which, according to him, are translated incorrectly in almost every translation of the Bible; and 15 would also be relevant for the study version. In addition, I have read a few other essays on this psalm that either support Clines' criticism or provide additional information. If I get to it tomorrow, it will be a mega-criticism. Would it make more sense to set the status to "check", or should we leave that for the time being? Personally, I would not do it, but if someone else is unsure enough here ... --Sebastian Walter 22:08, Jan. 3, 2012 (CET)

Sounds very exciting! But I would think you don't need to change the status again for that. It is best to do it verse by verse, as below. I'm excited! :-) - Ben 22:23, Jan. 3, 2012 (CET)

Well, let's go :)
I already announced it yesterday; here it is now: My Clines mega-review. I have to say 3 things in advance:

  1. There are umpteen suggestions for the division of Psalm 23. Most of the time, these divisions are based on the metaphorical image level of the Psalm. * The most common: 1-4: Sheep Shepherd, 5-6: Guest Host. * There have also been attempts to read the Psalm in such a way that there is only one metaphorical level, namely the sheep-shepherd complex. Morgenstern was probably the first to suggest this, in "Psalm 23, in: JBL 65 (1946). P. 15 ff. And Clines is also a representative of this minority opinion, which is sometimes a bit vulnerable to his translation criticism from v. 5 onwards I myself have already collected 6 other outline suggestions that are only as a note.
  2. Clines' translation criticism is sometimes based on knowledge of sheep. At first I thought that was a bit strange, but then it occurred to me: in Num 31, the spoils of war are counted once, and they come up with animals: 61,000 donkeys, 72,000 cattle and 675,000 (!) Sheep and goats. Sheep breeding was one of the most widespread occupations in ancient Israel; Knowledge about sheep and sheep breeding can therefore be assumed with great probability from the psalmist. And that's why Clines' approach makes sense.
  3. Sometimes Cline's criticism builds on one another. That's why I don't make a distinction here between "relevant for the reading version" and "~ for the study version"; but I mark it out.
  4. edit: It is 0.30 a.m.; I'm too tired to write down the references now. And tomorrow I have to write another sermon; I don't know if I'll get around to it. If anyone is interested, before I get around to writing them down: my bibliography is at the top.

--Sebastian Walter 00:55, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)

Especially if the author is really David, then expertise about sheep would be the most natural thing in the world! ;-) Thank you for the effort. --Ben 14:40, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)

Hm. Command back. I have read a fantastic article that makes it seem possible to me that we may be going in the wrong direction in terms of translation. I am not summarizing it - it only has 5 pages. Roughly speaking, the point is that by asking how the metaphor can be resolved as cleanly as possible here, we are bringing a completely wrong understanding of the poetry to the psalm. A psalmist of that time was not concerned with clean metaphors, but with the clear visualization of theological statements, he writes. Therefore, the more accurate translation would be neither the one that is literal nor the one that "makes the poem strong", but the one that reveals the underlying theology as clearly as possible.

A compilation of the literature I have used has been requested. Here she is:

I mainly used for the translation review:

  • Clines, David J. A .: Translating Psalm 23, in: Aucker, W. Brian et al. (Eds.): Reflection and Refraction. Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honor of A. Graeme Auld (= Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 113). Leiden / Boston, 2007. pp. 67-80.
  • Tappy, Ron E .: Psalm 23: Symbolism and Structure, in: The Catholic biblical quarterly 57 (2/95). Pp. 255-280.
  • Knauf, Ernst Axel: Psalm 23.6, in: VT 51 (4/01). P. 556.

But, as noted above, I'm still up now

  • Eaton, John: Problems of Translation in Psalm 23: 3 f., In: The Bible Translator 4/65. Pp. 171-176.

who, if he is right, could throw all previous criticism over again. The link is above, I would really advise you to read it. He's older, but very enlightening (and supports Tappy).

The three above are only supportive (they don't give so much for a translation review, except maybe Goulder, the imho strongest of the following essays) I used them:

  • Goulder, Michael: David and Yahweh in Psalm 23 and 24, in: JSOT 30 (3/06).
  • Grogan, Georffrey W .: Psalms. ? [Eerdmans], 2008.
  • Lundbom, Jack R .: Psalm 23: Song of Passage, in: Interpretation 40 (1986) [m.M.n. almost a little naive.]
  • Limburg, James: Psalms. Westminster, 2000.
  • Smith, Mark S .: Setting and Rhetoric in Psalm 23, in: JSOT 13 (1988). Pp. 61-66.
  • Terrien, Samuel L .: The Psalms: strophic structure and theological commentary. ? [Eerdmanns], 2003.

--Sebastian Walter 1:26 p.m., Jan. 7, 2012 (CET)

Outstanding! Enter them in the checklist at the top of the page, where Olaf had already entered two other comments. --Ben 14:27, Jan. 7, 2012 (CET)

Eaton already has a lot to offer. I think we need to cut back on our interpretation. I just find the only necessary measure in v. 3b to turn “on right paths (paths of righteousness)” into “on right paths (righteous paths)”. Otherwise, however, I think we are already relatively neutral. But I find his argumentation on the meaning of “death shadow” not at all convincing. I like our current direction better. In my opinion, our solution is also adequate for comforting vs. giving confidence. --Ben 14:27, Jan. 7, 2012 (CET)

By the way, if you're wondering why I'm going back to the SF - this is my personal experiment on how generally understandable the various translation problems of Ps 23 can be explained (see here). But I will still make sure that my suggestions for changes make sense; despite this primary intention - do not be afraid. :)
Because there is already a lot on the discussion page that has already been clarified (at least for the time being), I add a "clarified" to these points - then you can already see in the table of contents what is still open. --Sebastian Walter 10:57, 29 Sep. 2014 (CEST)


I made a number of suggestions for improvement over a year ago. Either it was not addressed at all, or Ben replied briefly and then left the discussion. What do I do now if nobody responds to my suggestions? Normally I would just work it in now, but Ps 23 is our example chapter e.g. on the home page ... --Sebastian Walter (discussion) 22:09, 2nd Dec. 2015 (CET)

V. 1 [edit]

YHWH is my Shepherd vs. My Shepherd is YHWH [edit]

In Hebrew it says יְהוָ֥ה רֹ֝עִ֗י - YHWH [is] my shepherd. Why did you change that --Ben 16:28, May 3, 2011 (CEST)

Zenger writes about the passage: "More precisely:" My Shepherd is the Lord "(and no one else)". Kraus also emphasizes that "my shepherd" is the subject here and YHWH is the predicate. With the German sentence "JWHW is my shepherd", however, JHWH would be the subject and "is my shepherd" predicate. --Olaf 17:33, May 3, 2011 (CEST)
I have Kraus myself. As the discussion there shows, it is by no means agreed which word represents which element, but rather interpretation. I learned in Hebrew and Greek during the Urtext analysis that in a situation like this it is practically impossible to say which element is subject and which subject identification supplement (or predicate, which is perhaps an older or specifically Hebrew term, because how can a verbless sentence have a predicate?) is. It doesn't make a big difference either, because both are equated. Now look how Kraus translates it: "Yahweh is my shepherd".
So it's not about which word comes first. It's about which subject is and which one identifies the subject. In other words: to which question is the statement the correct answer? On "Who is YHWH?" or "Who is my Shepherd?" I would join the two and prefer the last option. "YHWH is my shepherd, "not" YHWH is my shepherdFor me, that doesn't justify a sentence change. The Hebrew text can be transferred one-to-one into German - including the ambiguity. In Hebrew, the situation with regard to subject and SIdE is just as unclear as in German. What the change does now , is: She interprets .-- Ben 18:47, May 3, 2011 (CEST)
I looked again in my grammar (Schneider 1993). Schneider also emphasizes that both the subject and the predicate can come first and differentiate between the “known” and the “new”. So I agree with you and will change it again in the study version to “YHWH is my shepherd”, plus a footnote with Zenger's translation. I will keep it in the reading version. --Olaf 19:47, May 3, 2011 (CEST)
The question already mentioned by you about the word order - "YHWH is my shepherd" or "My shepherd, this is YHWH" also addresses Clines. The answer, he writes, must be approached in such a way that it is considered whether this is an identification ("I have a shepherd. His name is YHWH and is this there") or a classification ("YHWH is of a kind Shepherd ").
Clines: "In my opinion, it is inconceivable that the meaning should be: Yahweh is my shepherd, ie, it is Yahweh who is my shepherd - for that would mean, Yahweh and not someone else. And there is nothing in the psalm about rival shepherds. So I am clear that the sense is: Yahweh is my shepherd, ie, it is a shepherd that Yahweh is to me - which is after all the point the whole poem is making in each of its verses. " (P. 67).
So this is a classification, so the topic YHWH and the rhema must be "my shepherd" => reading version needs to be changed. --Sebastian Walter 00:55, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)
That's also my opinion. And that's when I realize that I had argued the opposite before. But Clines makes it so convincing that I want to agree. I am also in favor of the switch. --Ben 14:40, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)
[from Olaf, I copied it from the forum here]
I had overlooked this sequel because of the inappropriate headline. I find neither Clines nor Zenger's opinion convincing and I have to look again at the grammars and think again.
Olaf 18:49, June 17, 2013 (CET)
You don't have to, I think. This is not only a question of Hebrew grammar, but also of German:
(1) Achilles may be a lion, but the lion is not an Achilles. "Der Herr ist mein Hirte" is a metaphor, and metaphors usually work in German in such a way that the substitute ("Löwe" / "Hirte") comes after the metaphorical expression ("Achilles" / "Der Herr"). In a prose text, a German teacher would write next to "a lion is Achilles" as well as next to "my shepherd is the Lord".
(2) Likewise, in German, the Rhema usually follows the topic ("Thema" and "Rhema" are the technical terms for what is quoted from Schneider with "known" and "new"). That is why one would not say out of the blue, for example, "I'm going home now", but "I'm going home now". For this reason too, A would appear next to it.
(3) In addition, you had already convinced yourself to the extent that you agreed with Ben and changed it in the study version to "YHWH is my shepherd" as the primary translation. In the reading version, on the other hand, you somehow took over the secondary decision.
(1) and (2) do not necessarily pull here, because we are dealing with poetry - and there it is; In "Gotteslob" (the Catholic hymn book) there is even the beautiful song "My shepherd 'is the Lord God / he will always feed me ...".
But still it would be stylistically nicer (I think), and if both were equally possible ...
Oh, (4): I did a translation comparison very quickly.Of the 15 Bibles that you can compare on, only the one from Grünewald has "My Shepherd is the Lord". And of the commentaries, the translation of which of Ps 23 I have at hand, none of the translators has this order (Alter 2007, p. 78f .; Baethgen 1892, p. 68; Briggs 1906, p. 207; Buttenwieser 1938, p. 551 ; Clines 2007, p. 79f .; Dahood 1965, p. 145; Deissler 1989, p. 95f .; Delitzsch 1883, p. 239; Duhm 1899, p. 74; Ehrlich 1905, p. 60f .; Gunkel 1911, p 57; Kissane 1953, p. 103; Kittel 1914, p. 96; Limburg 2000, p. 72; Nötscher 1953, p. 43f .; Schmidt 1934, p. 40; Terrien 2003; Waltke 2010, p. 434; Zenger 1987, p. 225; Zorell 1928, p. 35; Zuber 1986, p. 41). This puts it in the ratio comparison 35: 2. There should be a good reason for advocating such a minority opinion contrary to the primary translation of the study version.
P.S .: You see, I've collected - that had been on my mind a little longer :)
--Sebastian Walter 20:36, Jun 17, 2013 (CEST)
The study version still follows Zenger in terms of content (see footnote), so I actually need a change of opinion to change the content of the reading version. In the meantime, however, as announced, I have gone through the grammars again and now come to the conclusion that neither Zenger nor Clines fully convince me. My grammars (Gesenius, Schneider) both emphasize that subject and predicate or new and known can be in different order. But they agree that the stressed is at the beginning. So if I take this for granted and look for possible interpretations of the content, then I come up with four interpretations, of which only two are possible:
1. It is YHWH [and no one else] who is my Shepherd. I never miss anything. (Problem: There is no mention of any other hirrers in the text. So far I am following Clines.)
2. The following applies to YHWH: He my Shepherd [and nothing else]. I never miss anything. (Problem: YHWH is also something else, namely my God and the person who sets a table for me and the person in whose house I live. So Cline's argument can also be turned around, with even more absurd consequences.)
3. It is [the trustworthy] YHWH who is my Shepherd. I never miss anything.
4. The following applies to YHWH: He is my Shepherd [and not my enemy]. I never miss anything.
I cannot see anything in the text that would allow a clear decision between the third and fourth interpretation. Due to the emphasis placed on YHWH and the change of image in the second part, the following is clear to me: The starting point of the text is YHWH, and not the shepherd metaphor. I therefore suggest that instead of the Zenger quote, I take over the interpretations 3 and 4 in the footnote of the study version and change the reading version as follows: “° Our God ° - he is my shepherd. I never miss anything. "
--Olaf 21:22, Jun. 17, 2013 (CEST)
In my opinion, the text starts with YHWH and then describes in a metaphor one of YHWH's traits (not even as a demarcation from what YHWH is not, but as one of many that David would like to praise today). Sebastian has the m.M.n. very well unraveled. In my opinion, no previously suggested translation fits this observation other than the obvious, simple: "YHWH / Our God is my Shepherd." With your current proposal, I would like to know why you would like to add a demonstrative pronoun to the subject identification supplement. --Ben 22:55, Jun. 17, 2013 (CEST)

Two reasons: 1. “° Our God ° is my shepherd” sounds more wooden to one ear than “° Our God ° - he is my shepherd”. 2. The stressed sentence position of YHWH is no longer recognizable in the German sentence “Our God is my shepherd”. In the Luther translation, for example, I always emphasize “The Lord is my shepherd“Had in my ear. It was a discovery for me that the name YHWH is marked as the theme of the Psalm by the stressed position in the sentence. (The psalm does not stay with the shepherd theme, but then brings in more images.) --Olaf 18:17, Aug. 31, 2013 (CEST)

I would like to give the FN a little more detail on this. The only interpretation available there so far is that, by the way, Zenger has suggested a certain interpretation of this passage; it is not even clear whether that is our interpretation now. It also seems important to me to emphasize again that the word order is not particularly marked here. See e.g. BHRG §46.2:; also for example: Buth 1999; BrSynt §27; GKC §141l (that's what he means by "principal stress" - only that in this unmarked word order Not the predicate is particularly emphasized, but - as in German - the subject as the preceding part of the sentence is more in focus than the predicate.); Revell 1989 and much more. - Of course, Zenger's interpretation would still be possible, but from that Word order here does not speak for it. It is the other way around: First one would have to say that it is not YHWH but "my shepherd" who is the subject here, and only then can one say that the word order is then unusual. I therefore propose:

--Sebastian Walter 09:40, 29 Sep. 2014 (CEST)

(1) I think the content is good, but too detailed. A footnote should a) at least briefly summarize its content at the beginning and b) be reasonably easy to read. This footnote reads like an encyclopedia article. Our target group does not (only) consist of readers of theological specialist dictionaries. :-) A start would be to cite no more than three works per proof.

(2) In terms of content, it does not really come out how they differentiate the two key points. Perhaps this is due to the formulation of bullet point one. In any case, I would not know what is meant by this if I did not know the previous discussion.

(3) Other than that, is it possible that you've developed a bad habit of not giving page numbers recently? --Ben 06:12, Oct. 2, 2014 (CEST)

(1) + (2) Good, then I'll reorganize a bit.
(3) Yes. On the one hand because I always have so many sources and on the other hand because I would like to have my FNn shorter overall. That's why I've been saving page references lately where the source reference (a) refers to the translation of the quoted work refers (e.g. below at Clines and Waltke), (b) refers to the passage in the quoted work in which the biblical passage discussed is dealt with (e.g. here Deissler, Limburg, Nötscher, Zenger for structuring), (c) where the Sources mainly serve to compile "exegete series" so that one can estimate how many there are who represent a particular position (e.g. here: interpretation as a subordinate clause). Is not that good?

So? --Sebastian Walter 09:24, Oct 2, 2014 (CEST)

Footnote - clarified [edit]

I do not understand the following sentence in the footnote: He refers to himself again and again in the figurative sense as "sheep". --Olaf 19:57, May 3, 2011 (CEST)

My very malicious attempt to say: There is a sheep-shepherd relationship metaphor, in which the psalmist takes on the role of the sheep. You are welcome to phrase it better. It is true that so far this is not very understandable. :-) --Ben 21:04, May 3rd, 2011 (CEST)

I have now removed the involuntarily Dadaist sentence from the footnote until we have a reformulation. The remaining sentence already expresses a lot of what was meant. --Olaf 08:00, May 12, 2011 (CEST)

All right - but only because you put it so well! ;-) Nobody has called my style "involuntarily dadaistic"! :-D

I made one out of the two footnotes. You don't need more "clutter" than necessary. --Ben 09:24, May 12, 2011 (CEST)

Good idea to make a footnote out of this. Incidentally, with "Dadaism" I was not concerned with your style, but with the typing errors that make the sentence grammatically incomprehensible. I couldn't reliably reconstruct which formulation you actually wanted to write. --Olaf 09:40, May 12, 2011 (CEST)

That was clear to me. :-) --Ben 3:15 p.m., May 12, 2011 (CEST)

"lo '" as an object of "missing?" - clarified [edit]

This is not by Clines, sd. By Tappy, and so complicated (Tappy's essay is really not nice to read, but insanely accurate): The following: חָסֵר can be read both transitive and intransitive, so either "I miss x "or" I am missing "(cf. Gen. 8.3.5, where the floods" are absent or removed from the earth "). Lexicographers seem to opt for variant 1 in the majority, although no x is given here [but in Cline's reading the grass and water would be this x]. Tappy thinks variant 2 is more likely because - and now it gets complicated: נֶפֶשׁ means for Tappy either the whole being or the body of the being (and not the life force), and he quotes some parallel passages from the Bible and Ugaritic texts that actually suggest this .

That means then, the v. 3 means something like "He will bring me back on / on the right path if I get lost". So read, it made more sense in Psalm 1 to read חָסֵר intransitively.
Plus: This also makes sense because it has been noted several times that the overall movement of the Psalm is one of approximation: It starts with the semi-nomadic lifestyle of the shepherd and his sheep, then they sit down at the table and the picture changes to host-guest and is therefore more locally bound, and ultimately leads to the quasi-adoption of being-in-house, which is why some of them are in v. 6 have even discovered a father-child imagery. In v. 6 the psalmist is very close to YHWH, in his house. v. Reading 3a as "He brings me back" would be such a step in this process of rapprochement and thus make more sense in the overall course of the Psalm.

And that also affects v. 1 off. It should then read "I am not missing".
In addition, the psalm then took up the classic image of the lost sheep. That also made sense: Limburg noticed something exciting: The central word here is עִמָּד, "at-me". Before that there are exactly 26 words, after that there are exactly 26 words. The psalm depicts a movement of approach, so it is obvious that in verse 1, at least implicitly, the not-with-YHWH is spoken of.
By the way, it is possible that Tappy contradicts himself a bit here. He also writes that Psalm 23 consists of 3 "basic clauses", which are only elaborated and explicated in the subsequent parts. Namely: 1b, 4b and 6. He supports this by referring to the parallel structure of 1b and 4b (la achsr and la-aira ro) and 1a and 4a (each assigned to the following steeple in a complementary way ("Because YHWH my shepherd is "and"Self if I walk ")). But if camping on green pastures and that lead to still waters is supposed to be the elaboration of 1b, then it made more sense to read 1b than" I don't know any deficiency "iSv" My shepherd will join me supply everything, namely with food and water ". But it is certain that, should Tappy be right, v. 1b allows both interpretations and the ideal translation would be one that does justice to the two potentials of meaning. --Sebastian Walter 00:55, 5. Jan. 2012 (CET)

What does it mean in the article for "I'm not missing"? "Paint" or "miss"? I looked up in DBL Hebrew, TWOT and BDB and found the meaning of the missing or missing person anywhere. The thought connected with the word in the OT (according to TWOT) often seems to be that of the frugality of God's grace and supply, the main meaning therefore rather "having a lack / need". It is well known that "lo '" (does not) imply an object and can mean "nothing". The chosen interpretation is closer to. So I would support your observation that the article is not entirely consistent. Or is there a good reason to support this possible connotation after all? --Ben 14:40, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)

If you ask because you think I may have misunderstood the English text - that's not the case. For example, it says explicitly "One should read v. 1a as a circumstantial clause which affirms the reason behind a particular state or condition."Because Yhwh is my shepherd, I will not lack anything "(or, as we shall suggest later," I will not be absent from Yhwh's presence ")." (P. 260). (And you can see: It says "lack".) Of course, he makes it all even more complicated (for him there are 3 different potentials of meaning, but he himself is for the interpretation as "I will not get lost - he will bring me back") . Oh, it's best to just quote the relevant passage:


Spread throughout the text, he brings other references that support this and of which I have mentioned the most important ones above. In addition, he also allows, but less likely, the classic interpretation, and also the one that nepes ("dead body") has a semantic effect on haser (i.e. "to be absent") and turns it into "to be dead".
"Connotation" is not the right word here, for Tappy it is one of the denotative meanings. And there are enough reasons above, I think.

  • The missing object here suggests the intransitive reading
  • נֶפֶשׁ stands for the whole being or the body - Tappy cites enough parallel passages here for that to be dismissed as speculative.
  • So the verse in question is called "He brings me back," and if you just look at it, v. 1 than "I don't go lost" really make more sense.
  • The movement of the psalm - the approach of the sheep to the shepherd, companion and "father" is not entirely obvious, but it is undoubtedly a justified reading. See above, too, would suggest that such a meaning as "psalm start" would fit very well.

But I'm just playing Tappy's advocate right now. I myself find the conventional reading actually more meaningful when you look at it together with the following. Even more so, if lo 'can actually take the position of an object; I did not know that. I just thought I'd confront you with Tappy, I think his suggestions definitely make sense .-- Sebastian Walter 21:40, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)

No, the reason for asking was so that I can understand the reasoning better. I know that you study English literature, I wouldn't trust you to do that. At least I always understood "lo" to mean that it can also replace an indefinite object. I don't have any evidence for this, but I've translated it in a meaningful way several times. And the traditional interpretation supports me there.

Whether Tappy brings up a real alternative here, we should actually only have to prove lexically, then it would not be a problem. I have heard that the Clines Dictionary of Classical Hebrew is happy to address such usage issues. I could check that in the bib today.

I don't quite understand the connection with "nepes". "nepes" means first of all "life, living being, soul, vital force" (cf. the translation). Where does he get the element of death from? But the question doesn't seem really significant. (I'm looking forward to it if you can also speak Hebrew ... ;-))

By the way: Tell me if you mind that I add paragraphs to your text blocks. I'm only doing this so that I can keep an overview myself and understand your arguments better. :-) - Ben 11:12, Jan. 6, 2012 (CET)

Change it as you like it - there are always such masses of text that have been in the discussion so far ... If someone wants to get used to it who was not present at the time of the discussion - they will be desperate well.
In "Nepes", he initially falls back mainly on Ugaritic texts, where any other interpretation than "body" is very far away. And then comes this paragraph: In the Ugaritic texts it is the case that Baal's wife brings back his dead (!) Body (the word has the same root as "nepes"), and in the Psalms it also stands for the whole person. So if it were possible to interpret the steep as "it brings me back", then a justified interpretation is "it brings me back (connected with" the dead me / my dead body "), and in the Zhg. With chacer as" to be absent "(corresponds to" to be dead ") seems even more likely.

Eaton supports that too; He goes so far as to suggest that the psalm can be read as part of a liturgy in the course of which the king symbolically descends into the kingdom of the dead and is brought back by God.

"I'm looking forward to it when you can also speak Hebrew ... ;-)" - that's decided now; I'm teaching myself to do this now. I am going to the preparatory course in 4 months and would learn it there, but I don’t want to wait that long. Just to give your joy a little nourishment :)

--Sebastian Walter 14:12, Jan. 7, 2012 (CET)

FN b [edit]

I don't understand what LUT, REB, SLT and EÜ are assigned here; they don't "never".
In addition: One could come to "never" in two ways:

  1. One interprets לֹא as a temporal adverb (לֹא often means "never"; SLT e.g. translates it 40 times like this.), But then there would be no object that could "lack" and one would have to add:. => Unlikely.
  2. One interprets that Yiqtol habitual. Of course you can; But it can be read just as well as a futuristic Yiqtol - grammatically, the Yiqtol does not suggest either of the two options than the other. So it's better to simply:

- and the Yiqtol-FN would then have to be set in the following Yiqtol verbs, thus v. 2a: take care of it; V. 2b: leads; V. 3a: he brings back etc. --Sebastian Walter 10:20, 29 Sep. 2014 (CEST)

V. 2 [edit]

Waters - clarified

I would like to discuss the change to "waters" and the footnote with the note of the plural. The word for "water" is in fact a plural word, so there is no alternative to the plural that the psalmist could have chosen. If we always translate "the waters", we can also translate shamajjim as "the heavens". But it is not effective. I also chose "Gewässer" because it is not numerically defined in the same way as "Wasser" (which is uncountable in German). But I don't want to become dogmatic either. :-) --Ben 16:55, May 3, 2011 (CEST)

מְנֻחוֹת is in the plural and מֵי is uncountable. With "a body of water" and "the resting place" you translated both as singular. The other half of parallelism is also plural. Zenger's reference to the plural therefore seemed plausible to me and assumed an error in the translation. But if the shift to the singular was intentional, then I still don't understand why. --Olaf 19:39, May 3, 2011 (CEST)

Now I understand! No problem then. In the case of "resting place", I probably overlooked that. I'm glad I asked. --Ben 22:06, May 5, 2011 (CEST)

Made "Rest" to "Rest". OK? --Ben 09:24, May 12, 2011 (CEST)

I Agree. Did we then clarify all open questions? --Olaf 10:21, May 12, 2011 (CEST)

Here is a statement from Philip James Bohlken on Facebook about Psalm 23: >> In English: "Rest places" in v. 2 is good. Literally, it is "waters of rest." Rest is a huge concept in the OT. God rested on the seventh day. He gave Israel rest from its enemies in the Promised Land. Jesus said, "Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Hebrews 4 speaks of the Sabbath rest. << --Wolfgang Loest 10:36 p.m., May 12, 2011 (CEST)

ensures [edit]

In verse 2 you translate as "he lets me lie down", and you take "lets" as an alternative to "bring me to it, will cause me to". I'll translate what Clines writes here:
"But how is a shepherd supposed to do that? We could of course imagine a bodybuilder-shepherd who kills his sheep in the grass. Or does he just pull the sheep's feet away from under the body? Another possibility would of course be that he the sheep simply knocking unconscious with his staff and club. "
Here comes sheep-fact 1: You can't force a sheep to lie down. So "allows" here must have the meaning "allows me"; this should at least be stated in a footnote. Now I'm going beyond Clines; here comes sheep-fact 2: The NKJV Study Bible gives the following as a footnote to this verse: "Any disturbance or intruder scares sheep. They are very fearful animals and cannot lie down unless they feel totally secure." Then "he makes me lie down" would not mean that he forces me as a sheep to lie down, but "he makes that I (feel safe enough that I can lie down)" Perhaps you meant that with the footnote, Your draft version suggests so. But then the first sentence is wrong, "YHWH sees to it that something happens" would again force that down. --Sebastian Walter 00:55, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)

Would "make it possible that I ... can" be an appropriate translation? The Hifil used here requires such paraphrases, and it is valuable to point out that this can also be done in a more context-conscious manner. A footnote would also be valuable (and, with a similar suggestion, already in place, I see). Any further comments? --Ben 14:40, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)
The primary translation is ok because that can also stand for it. With which Clines ws. would not agree, are the alternative translations currently offered. But why I actually classified this as relevant was really mainly the wording of the first sentence in the footnote; if you wrote here "make it possible that I can ...", I would be happy. If Clines is right. I think the translation suggestion for the reading version is good. But anyway, as far as the study version is concerned: If that weren't too freely translated, Clines would cheer you for such a translation ("He makes (makes it possible for me) that I can rest on a green meadow."). --Sebastian Walter 21:48, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)
Mended. --Ben 12:42, Jan. 7, 2012 (CET)

FN c does not explain anything. I would also combine it with FN e, because what is explained there actually refers to the "take care of it (make it possible, allow me)".

--Sebastian Walter 1:28 p.m., Sep 29. 2014 (CEST)

(1) The criticism of footnote c is justified. You are welcome to unite.

(2) Why are Waltke's page numbers missing now? They are necessary for the quote. Something similar with Clines. (See the question above in v. 1 on the page numbers.)

(3) The whole explanation of the Hifil goes too far. It is sufficient in the footnote to cite the two possible meanings. Since you prefer one anyway, it would be more useful if you started with it from the start and limit the second meaning to a suffix or a subordinate clause.

(4) If the content of "lying down" does not fit (see the next section of the discussion on "lying down / resting"), I suggest making "rest" the main meaning. --Ben 06:12, Oct. 2, 2014 (CEST)

(2) See above - (3) Do you want to make a suggestion? But nice that you speak of "going too far". As I said, I am currently sitting over Ps 23 again to see how generally understandable SF-FNn can be formulated, which is why I have extended the Hifil explanation a little. If the SF is to be aimed primarily at people without biblical language skills, but should still explain something like that, it would in fact have to be included in this or a similar way. So it's a nice test case for the SF criteria discussion.

(4) The proposal confuses me now. Why? - "" Lying down "speaks here either of" resting "or" ruminating ", and because this verse speaks of grass that is good to eat and the next of water that is good to drink, it is mainly about resting"? --Sebastian Walter 09:24, Oct 2, 2014 (CEST)

To (4): Oh, I didn't even notice that: Your suggestion is probably really the better one. One Sticho speaks of lay down on good edible meadows, the other from Quiet and good potable water - so it is likely that both calm and nourishment are in focus here at the same time. Then FNn d and f would have to be adjusted. --Sebastian Walter 09:53, Oct 2, 2014 (CEST)

Lie down / rest - clarified [edit]

Even I find that a bit far-fetched. But Clines is smarter than me, so. "He makes me lie down" is not accurate enough. I myself would translate it as "rest" if you Clines agree. Namely, he writes: v. 1 is about the fact that the sheep will never lack anything (I already wrote above that Clines has a different reading). And verse 2b is about drinking. So it stands to reason that 2a is about food: "From a sheep's point of view, green grass means only one thing: food. The NAB understands that, and so it offers 'In green pastures you let me graze', ignoring the lying down. " - But "grazing" is also completely wrong here, "laying down" cannot be a synonym for "grazing".

Here's why: Sheep-fact 3: Sheep don't eat when they're lying down. They either stand and eat, or they lie and do not eat. When they lie down, they either do two things: sleep or ruminate. And exactly here, according to Clines, laying down means (I'm translating again):
"In these urbanized days, where most of us know very little about rogue habits, if I were a Bible translator I would translate," He doesn't keep pushing me on and on, but lets me sit for a few hours lay down and chew on what I ate from the green grass while lying down, "but unfortunately that would fail the test for poetic quality." --Sebastian Walter 00:55, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)

Another interesting observation. "Rest" sounds more context-conscious than "camp" - "camp" comes from "camp" and also implies the preparation of a place of rest. Or does it just imply resting in animals? According to TWOT, rest is definitely part of the main meaning, it is about lying down to rest, not to sleep. It also lists several parallel passages where rabaz also speaks of people as sheep: Ezek 34:13; Isa 13:20 (however up to now Qal); a direct parallel is in Hohelied 1,7 (here also Hifil). But that sounds familiar to me, have we already listed the jobs somewhere before?
My suggestion would be that we consider whether there is an even better alternative than "resting". For me, "rest" would be stylistically even more beautiful (rest comes shortly beforehand) and also more vivid. One possible translation would then be: "He makes sure (makes it possible for me) that I can rest on a green meadow." --Ben 14:40, Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)
No, Rasten comes back shortly afterwards, and Clines argues against it. I thought rest was good because this word includes the possibility of eating, but not rest at all. --Sebastian Walter 10:08 p.m., Jan. 5, 2012 (CET)
Well, I've now revised the footnote. I don't know if I got your point right - are you in favor of including food now, or not? We can of course improve the footnote after doing better research. Also, could you say a source for sleeping and ruminating? It still has to go in. --Ben 11:45, Jan. 6, 2012 (CET)