FAQ 127 Psalm 38:1 and the EHV's Approach to Poetry

FAQ 127 Psalm 38:1 and the EHV’s Approach to Poetry Part 1: Psalm 38:1 The Question: Regarding the first verse, your commentary on Psalms, page 400, says that it is God's anger, not his rebuking, that is negated, and you translated "LORD, rebuke me not in your anger." KJV and ESV translate similarly, while the NIV has "LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger." I'm wondering then why the EHV has "LORD, do not rebuke me in anger." Is there a reason the pronoun "your" was dropped? None of the other translations that I checked do that. Two ways of translating this line have been: Do not rebuke me in your anger Rebuke me not in your anger. Either translation is subject to possible misunderstanding unless an explanation is added. The first can be misunderstood as saying that he is praying that God, who is angy, should nevertheless not rebuke him. This cannot be right because in many places biblical writers ask God to rebuke them, and he did in fact rebuke David. The second one, “rebuke me not in your anger,” is less subject to this misunderstanding, but it could be made more explicit by saying, “Rebuke me but not in your anger,” but this would add a word not in the Hebrew. The issue is made more complicated by the fact that in Hebrew the negative not occurs only in the first line, but a negative is needed in each line. In the EHV a negative is placed in the same spot in each line. LORD, do not rebuke me in anger. Do not discipline me in wrath. In the commentary there is only one not, the one in the first line. There, the second line merely begins with nor, which simply parallels the second line to the first. “Rebuke me [but] not in anger” makes it clearer that David’s prayer is that the divine attribute of anger not be involved in God’s rebuke. This makes it clear that David is to be rebuked, not in anger, but in love and mercy. The important point is to make clear that David wants to be rebuked, but he does not want divine anger to be involved. Part 2: The EHV’s Approach to Poetry The Question: One comment I have heard occasionally about the EHV is that it is less poetic than some other translations. Often, I think that's a matter of opinion or selection bias. Other times I think it's a natural consequence of the EHV's goal to be easily understood. Poetic language is often intentionally sweeping and abstract, not simple, clear, and specific. But I wonder if a verse like this one might be a third kind of issue that leads some to make this complaint. Your commentary for Psalm 6 refers to the hymn, "Not in anger, mighty God, not in anger smite us." That's a highly poetic phrase. It's not the way people normally talk, but that doesn't mean that it's hard to understand. So I guess I can see what people are saying 1 when they look at a phrase like "O LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath" and say that "LORD, do not rebuke me in anger" is less poetic. First let’s deal with the issue whether the hymn version of Psalm 38:1 is more poetic than the EHV: Not in anger, mighty God, not in anger smite us. Most readers would say this is a highly poetic phrase. Notice that it has exactly the same emphasis that the EHV is going for—it very strongly connects the negation to the attribute anger. It doubles down on this by moving the noun anger to the front of the sentence ahead of the verb. To achieve its striking poetic effect the hymn had to depart rather freely from the order and the arrangement of the Hebrew parallelism. Notice that this rendering further emphasizes the general nature of the attribute anger by not including the modifier your. Perhaps this omission exerted an unconscious influence on the EHV omission of the modifier your. The hymn creates a very poetic impression on the English reader, but to achieve this effect, it had to depart quite a bit from the Hebrew poetry. Now let’s turn to the EHV’s approach to translating Hebrew poetry. Our goal is not to create striking English poetry but to reflect as closely as possible the nature of the Hebrew poetry, which is very different than traditional English poetry. English poetry emphasizes rhyming sounds and words. Hebrew emphasizes “rhyming” thoughts. We will begin with a summary of the traits of Hebrew poetry. This summary is taken from A Commentary On Psalms 1-72 by John Brug, Northwestern Publishing House, 2004, p 50-62. This commentary predates the EHV and was used in producing the EHV, so the wording of the examples below does not match the wording of the EHV. From the commentary The Poetry of Psalms Some have questioned whether biblical Hebrew poetry should even be called poetry. Even the majority of the Dead Sea manuscripts of Psalms format the psalms like blocks of prose rather than poetry. Biblical poetry does not look or sound much like traditional English poetry. Biblical poetry does not use rhyming lines, and it has no regular meter. What then makes it poetry? There is, of course, no universally agreed-on definition of poetry. Traditionalists might question whether much of contemporary English poetry meets their definition of poetry. Like Hebrew poetry contemporary English poetry often lacks rhyme and meter. What then is poetry? Poetry has been defined as “the art of rhythmical composition for the purpose of exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, and elevated thoughts.” According to this definition, the essence of poetry is not metrical composition, but heightened speech. Poetry makes an especially strong appeal to the emotions. A key component of poetry is the prevalence of figures of speech, which often makes poetry more ambiguous than prose. The definition above leaves the boundary line between poetry and elegant prose 2 somewhat blurry, but it is comprehensive enough to include both Hebrew poetry and modern non-metrical English poetry. The two key elements of biblical poetry are imagery and parallelism. The difference between Hebrew prose and poetry is clear when we compare prose and poetic accounts of the same event, the death of Sisera. The prose presents a historical report while the poetry is more of an emotional remembrance. The poetry puts greater emphasis on the outcome and on God’s role in it. The prose account: Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, ‘‘Come, my lord, come right in. Don’t be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she put a covering over him. ‘‘I’m thirsty,” he said. ‘‘Please give me some water.” She opened a skin of milk, gave him a drink, and covered him up. ‘‘Stand in the doorway of the tent,” he told her. ‘‘If someone comes by and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say ‘No.’” But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died (Judges 4:18-21) The poetic account: Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women. He asked for water, and she gave him milk; in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk. Her hand reached for the tent peg; her right hand for the workman’s hammer. She struck Sisera, she crushed his head; she shattered and pierced his temple. At her feet he sank; he fell; there he lay. At her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell—dead (Judges 5:24-27). The prose account is a very straightforward, linear account. It moves quickly from one action to another with little or no repetition. It simply tells what happened. It gives significant attention to Jael’s deceptive actions in luring Sisera to his death. The poetical account on the other hand omits such details to dwell on two significant aspects of the event—the glory due to Jael and the crushing ignominy of Sisera’s death. The opening lines of the poem exalt Jael with a double blessing. Jael’s granting of a deceptive hospitality is dismissed quickly with two parallel lines describing the giving of milk. The focus is on Sisera’s death. The fatal blow is described with four parallel verbs—struck, crushed, shattered, pierced. Twice the text emphasizes that it was at her feet that he fell. Sisera’s death is described 3 with seven parallel verbs—sank, fell, lay, sank, fell, sank, fell. The account ends with one shattering word—dead! Both accounts convey the same basic information, but the emotional impact of the two accounts is significantly different. The poetry heightens the emotional impact that is only implied in the prose account. Types of Parallelism The most important feature of biblical poetry is parallelism. Instead of matching rhymed words at the end of each line of the poem, parallelism matches corresponding thoughts in each line of the poem. Poetry which uses parallelism as its main technique is therefore primarily a poetry of thoughts rather than a poetry of sounds. The basic unit of Hebrew poetry is a pair of thoughts (a couplet). Occasionally a thought triplet (three parallel thoughts) is used. Hebrew poetry uses three main kinds of parallelism: 1) In synonymous parallelism the second segment of the parallelism repeats the same thought as the first segment in almost identical words. The opening verse of Psalm 19 is an excellent example of balanced synonymous parallelism: The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 19:8-9 is a further example of precisely balanced parallelism. The law of the LORD The statutes of the LORD The precepts of the LORD The commands of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. are trustworthy, making wise the simple. are right, giving joy to the heart. are radiant, giving light to the eyes. Many examples of synonymous parallelism occur in Psalm 2: Why do the nations rage| and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand| and the rulers gather together. Let us break their chains, they say| and throw off their fetters. Sometimes parallelism is incomplete, that is, not every item in the first segment is matched in the second segment. An example is Psalm 24:1: The earth is the LORD’s and everything in it. The world and all who live in it. One item in one member of the parallelism must frequently do “double duty.” This is called “gapping.” This terseness of style permits even a negative particle to be omitted in 4 one member of the parallelism (Psalm 9:19, GK 152z). Indeed, not forever will the needy be forgotten; the hope of the afflicted will [not] perish forever.  Sometimes parallelism is climactic, with the second line repeating and completing the first: The seas have lifted up, O LORD, The seas have lifted up their voice. Psalm 93:3 Even when parallelism is synonymous, the second member often goes beyond mere repetition. The repetition intensifies the emotion and focuses the reader’s attention on the thoughts and feelings being expressed. Sometimes repeating both the subordinate and main clauses holds the completion of the thought in abeyance and creates suspense. An example is Psalm 114:1-2: A1 A2 B1 B2 When Israel came out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of foreign tongue, Judah became God’s sanctuary, Israel his dominion. 2) In antithetic parallelism the second segment is the opposite of the first. This type of parallelism is especially common in Proverbs. It is much less frequent in Psalms. An example is found in Psalm 1:6. For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish. In this example, notice that the corresponding items are not in the same order in both segments. “The way of the righteous” is last in the first segment and is the object of the verb, but its matching phrase, “the way of the wicked,” is first in the second segment and is the subject. This reversal of order is a deliberate stylistic feature known as chiasm. 3) In synthetic parallelism, growing parallelism, or formal parallelism the second portion advances the thought of the first in some way. Two ideas together make up one greater idea. Consider these examples from Psalm 1: Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he mediates day and night (note the chiasm). These examples could easily be classified as synonymous parallelism, but the italicized words show how each new segment intensifies the thought. However, in many examples 5 of synthetic parallelism there is much less parallel between the two segments of the verse than there is in the previous examples. Psalm 4:6-8 illustrates some of the many possible types of synthetic parallelism. Parallelism may set forth a question and answer: Many are asking, “Who can show us any good?” Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD. Psalm 4:6 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. Psalm 119:9 The second member may give an illustration, comparison, or contrast: You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abound. Psalm 4:7 Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked. Psalm 37:16 The second member may give a reason for the first statement: I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in peace. Psalm 4:8 Sometimes the second member merely gives a further description of the first member of the parallelism: Praise be to the LORD, who has not let us be torn by their teeth. Psalm 124:6 There are even verses which cannot easily be divided into two members. Such run-on lines are called enjambment. Be strong and take heart,| all you who hope in the LORD. Psalm 31:24 I will extol the LORD with all my heart| in the council of the upright and in the assembly. Psalm 111:1 In examples like these, the preconception that Hebrew poetry must have parallelism leads commentators to stretch the definition of parallelism to include lines which show little if any parallelism. Perhaps it is better simply to recognize that some Hebrew poetry does not feature parallelism. This lack of parallelism is more common in Books IV and V of Psalms. Psalm 110 is a striking example of a poem with little parallelism except in verses 5 and 6. Parallelism is a creative art with many variations. The rich diversity of parallelism resists the scholar’s desire to divide, subdivide, and classify every variety. Parallelism 6 often does not follow a set pattern within a poem. Sometimes there are lines which have no parallel. Sometimes there are three or more lines which are parallel. It seems that climactic lines of a poem are least likely to exhibit parallelism. In spite of this irregularity parallelism is the main poetic feature of almost every Hebrew poem. Parallelism is not unique to biblical poetry. It appeared in Egyptian and Ugaritic literature long before the time of David. Parallelism, however, is more fully developed in Hebrew poetry than in earlier poetry. Parallelism of thought can, of course, be translated into other languages much more easily than rhyme or meter can. It is interesting that the inspired poetry of Scripture was written in the poetic technique that is most easily translated into other languages. As you read the psalms, remember that observing the parallelism is often an aid in understanding the meaning of the poem. It also often is an aid in translating rare words in the psalms. Turn to Psalms 1 and 2 and see if you can identify the parallelisms. Other Poetic Features: Meter Although Hebrew poetry does not have regular rhyme and meter as traditional English poetry does, some scholars have attempted to find some rhythmic pattern or meter in Hebrew poetry. There is a great deal of controversy about this subject. Resolution of the controversy depends in part on the definition of “meter.” “Rhythm” is a reoccurring pattern of sounds marked by stress, loudness, pitch, or length. All speech has rhythm, but it is more regular in poetry. When a rhythmic pattern is very regular throughout a poem, it is called “meter.” On the basis of this definition one must conclude that though Hebrew poetry has rhythm, stress, and sonority, it does not seem possible to discover any consistent metrical system in the psalms. This, however, has not stopped many scholars, ancient and modern, from trying. Eduard Sievers pioneered modern critical metrical studies. Frank Cross and David Noel Freedman have played a prominent role more recently. A brief overview of this endeavor is found in Gillingham, The Poems and Psalms of the Bible, p 44-64. There are three generally-recognized types of meter: 1) meter based on syllable length, as in Greek poetry, 2) meter based on syllable or word count, regardless of length, and 3) meter based on accent count. None of these types of meter occur in Hebrew or Ugaritic poetry. Even advocates of various theories of meter in Hebrew poetry admit that Hebrew poetry uses “irregular meter” (an oxymoron) and that no Hebrew poem is written in one meter. This is a virtual admission that there is no meter in biblical Hebrew poetry. The claim that there is no meter in biblical poetry is subject to two challenges. First, there are some common patterns of stress in Hebrew poetry, such as lines with three stresses followed by two (3:2). Other common patterns are 4:3, 2:2, 3:3, and 4:4. Even this limited “meter,” however, is not regular throughout a psalm. Psalms cited as possessing a degree of regularity are Psalm 117 (3:3), Psalm 46 (4:4), and Psalm 29 (2:2). 7 Psalm 117 has only two lines, so it is not a very compelling example of regular meter. In the other two examples the meter is not consistent throughout. It is debatable if such irregular “meter” can really be called meter. Second, the search for meter in biblical poetry is complicated by the fact that the number of syllables in Hebrew words and the location of accents seems to have changed significantly during the centuries between the time when the biblical poetry was written and the finalization of the Masoretic pronunciation. The Masoretic pronunciation of words, and thus the sound of the poem, may be significantly different than the sound that the poem had when written at the time of David. We occasionally see examples of a similar phenomenon in old English poems in which words that rhymed at the time of composition no longer rhyme today. In old English, “wind” (the wind blows) rhymed with “find.” Now it rhymes with “thinned.” For us to be able to recognize all the poetical features in the poetry of psalms or to determine the meter, the pronunciation of the psalms in the days of the Masoretes would have to been unchanged from the time of David, 1600 years earlier. This hardly seems likely in a living language, and there is evidence for some changes after the writing of the Septuagint, which was about mid-way between David and the Masoretes. One such phenomenon is called “attenuation,” by which an a vowel in an unstressed closed syllable developed into an i. In the Septuagint for instance we have the names and (our Maria), but MT has  and . Another change, which is more serious since it affects the number of syllables, is the anaptyxis (the insertion of a vowel to break up a consonant cluster) by which the segholate nouns were created. This change occurred after Aquila and Origen, but before Jerome and MT. Origen, for instance, has  but MT has . In this process  becomes . Three other changes that may have occurred are: (a) the differentiation of  and preceding imperfects (Origen differs from the MT); (b) the double pronunciation of the begadkefat letters (external evidence concerning this is confused); and (c) the value or values of qamets. In the time of Jerome there were differences of opinion as to the pronunciation of the vowels. H. Harviainen translates the following excerpt from Jerome: “It does not matter whether it is called Salem or Salim, because the vowel letters (= matres lectionis) are used by Jews very rarely in medial positions and the same words are realized with different (vowel) sounds and accents in accordance with the will of reader and regional distinctions.” The dual-like ending on “Yerushalaim” in the MT is different than the renderings of the early versions, which underlie our rendering “Jerusalem.” It is a demonstration of the providence of God that he caused biblical poetry to be written with parallelism and figures of speech as its key features. These features could be preserved even during the centuries when the psalms were being transmitted as an unpointed text that had no vowels and was changing in pronunciation. We accept the theory that if biblical poetry was written in meter, no one has yet succeeded in recovering it. As a sort of alternative to analysis of meter some scholars have turned to an analysis 8 of the syntactic patterns of Hebrew poetry. M. O’Conner goes so far as to say that syntactical constriction is the fundamental feature of Hebrew poetry. Stanzas and Strophes The fundamental unit of a Hebrew poem is the line. A line is comparable to the fundamental unit of prose, the simple sentence. A line of Hebrew poetry usually can be divided into two or more short phrases called cola. Since most lines have two cola, the typical line in Hebrew poetry is called a bicolon. Prose has no unit which forms a precise parallel to the most distinctive building block of Hebrew poetry, the couplet or triplet of parallel lines. The closest equivalent in prose would be a compound sentence. A couplet is comparable to a pair of rhymed lines in an English poem. This commentary will use the term “strophe” for this unit of poetic parallelism. We will use the term “stanza” for the larger thought units of the poem, the equivalent of paragraphs in prose.* Hebrew poetry rarely has stanzas with an equal number of lines as English hymns do. It is possible to divide psalms into stanzas of grouped lines, but these are seldom of uniform length. The eight-lined stanzas of Psalm 119 form a notable exception. Occasionally Hebrew poems are divided into sections by a refrain or by Selah. Psalms 56 and 57 are examples of psalms with a refrain that appears only twice. Psalms 42-43 and Psalm 107 have refrains which occur three times, but such reoccurrence of the same lines more than twice in one psalm is rare. In Psalm 136 a refrain line is repeated with every verse. Other forms of poetic repetition are found in Psalm 29,which repeats the term “the voice of the Lord” seven times; in Psalm 130:6 with its echo of watchmen waiting for the morning; and in Psalm 118: 2-4, 8-9, 10-12, 15-16 with their echoing phrases. Acrostics One special type of systematic arrangement found in Hebrew poetry is called “acrostic.” “Acrostic” means “at the beginning of a line.” In this form of poetry the first letter or sign of each line forms part of a pattern. There are two basic types of acrostic in ancient Near Eastern poetry: 1) message acrostics, in which the first letters or signs of the lines of the poem spell out a hidden message, such as the author’s name, and 2) sequence acrostics, in which each line of the poem starts with a successive letter of the alphabet or with successive numbers. All of the biblical acrostics are alphabetic sequence acrostics. An alphabetic acrostic is written by beginning the first line of a poem with a word starting with aleph, the * It should be noted that there is no consistency in the use of the terms strophe and stanza in works about Hebrew poetry. 9 second with  beth, the third with gimel, and so on throughout the alphabet (Psalms 111, 112, 145). In extended acrostics each line of the first stanza may start with , each line of the second stanza with , and so on. This is the pattern of Psalm 119, which is the most elaborate acrostic and the most structured psalm in the book of Psalms. Each stanza of Psalm 119 has eight lines, each of which begins with the same letter of the alphabet. In other cases only the first line of each stanza begins with the acrostic letter (Psalm 37). In Psalms 25 and 34 the alphabetic sequence is altered so that the first line begins with , the middle line with , and the last line with , spelling aleph, which is the name of the first letter of the alphabet and also a verb meaning “I learn.” Psalms 9-10 follows a partial acrostic pattern, but it is questionable if this was written as an acrostic. Psalms contains seven acrostics without counting Psalm 9-10. Acrostic poems also occur in the book of Lamentations. The acrostic style may have been intended as an aid to memorization, but it is more likely that it is a stylistic device to indicate that the poet is covering the topic “from A to Z.” Psalm 119 certainly aims for comprehensiveness, not ease of memorization. It is noteworthy that the acrostics in Psalms are more similar to Egyptian sequence acrostics of the late 2nd millennium BC than to Akkadian message acrostics of the mid 1st millennium BC. This militates against the critical idea that the acrostics in Psalms are post-exilic compositions based on a technique learned in Babylon. Other Stylistic Arrangements A psalm or group of psalms is sometimes bracketed by similar or identical lines. Psalms 8, 103, 104 and 118 begin and end with the same line. Psalm 1 and 2, which form an introduction to the book of Psalms, are bracketed by the blessings which begin Psalm 1 and end Psalm 2. Psalms 23-28 are a thematic group; the last verse of Psalm 28 closes the shepherd theme which began in Psalm 23. Psalms 52-63 are bracketed by references to the cutting tongues of the enemies. Such bracketing constructions are called inclusion or the envelope, parentheses, or bookends construction. These features are noted in the chart of Psalms which appears on the Wartburg Project website. Centering of the key thought is a common structure in Psalms. Quite often the theme of a psalm is in the middle, frequently in the exact middle line. Sometimes this lies at the center of a chiastic arrangement. Sometimes the middle line or the thematic words are preceded and followed by an equal number of Hebrew words. In Psalm 92, the Sabbath song, the middle words, “You are exalted forever, O Lord,” are preceded and followed by 52 words, the number of sabbaths in the year. As we saw above, in Psalms 25 and 34 the acrostic structure may have been altered to center a thematic line. In Psalm 25 the middle words “For your name’s sake” () are preceded and followed by 77 words. In Psalm 34 the middle words “I will teach you the fear of the LORD” () are preceded and followed by 77 words. The middle words of Psalm 23, “For you are with me,” () are preceded and followed by 26 words, the symbolic number of the Tetragrammaton (=10, =5, =6, =5 =26). There is no way of proving that this exact centering is not coincidence, but it seems to occur too frequently for this to be a plausible 10 explanation. Figures of Speech Like most poetry Hebrew poetry makes extensive use of figures of speech. A typical strategy of poetry is to picture an emotion with a series of concrete images. Recognizing and interpreting the figures of speech is, therefore, a key step in understanding the psalms and experiencing their emotional power. Among the common figures of speech in Psalms are: Simile: a comparison marked by “like” or “as.” The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water. The ungodly are like chaff which the wind blows away. Psalm 1:3-4 Sometimes the parallelism provides both simile and literal meaning. As a father pities his children, so the LORD pities those who fear him. Psalm 103:13. Metaphor: a comparison without a comparative word such as “like.” Many bulls surround me. Dogs have surrounded me. Psalm 22:12 & 16 (“Bulls” and “dogs” refer to vicious men). Synecdoche: the name of part of something stands for the whole thing. Let the bones you have crushed rejoice. Psalm 51:8 (Means “Let me, whom you have chastened, rejoice.”) Merismus: two extremes denote a totality. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night. Psalm 121:6 (Means “Nothing will harm you at any time.”) The Lord will watch over your coming and going. Psalm 121:8 (“He will watch everything you do all the time.”) Personification: characteristics of living beings are ascribed to inanimate things. Love and faithfulness meet together. Righteousness and peace kiss each other. Psalm 85:10 Apostrophe: speech is addressed to absent persons or inanimate things. Away from me, all you who do evil. Psalm 6:8 Lift up your heads, O you gates. Psalm 24:7 11 Praise the LORD, all his angels, sun, moon, stars, snow, trees, children, etc. Psalm 148 Hyperbole: strong statements which express not a literal truth but an emotional truth (“I told you a million times” “All eyes were glued to the stage.”). One thing have I asked of the LORD... that I may dwell in the house of the LORD. Psalm 27:1 (Actually he asked for many things, but one was most important). By my God I can leap over a wall. Psalm 18:29. (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me). Litotes: a strong expression of a truth by denying its opposite. Be not far from me. Psalm 22:11 (Means “Be near me.”) Sound Effects Hebrew poetry sometimes creates special effects by placing together words which begin with the same sound (alliteration) or by using puns and word-plays. These features are usually lost in translation, but they will be noted as we translate certain psalms. End of the commentary The EHV Rules and Practices for Translating Hebrew Poetry Our goal was not to produce what sounds most poetic to English ears, but what best reflects the nature of Hebrew poetry, which is not primarily the echoing of sounds but the arrangement of the words. Our approach for the most part was to try to reflect the nature of Hebrew poetry, not to create English poetic features that are not part of the Hebrew technique. English poetic techniques like rhyming belong more to “hymn versions” of psalms, which began with the psalm hymns of Isaac Watts and have an honored place in English worship. Some General Observations We want poetry to look and sound like poetry. Unusual and emphatic word order may be retained to some degree, as it is in our hymns. When translating poetry, we pay attention to rhythm and we try to balance of the length of lines, especially for musical performance. But the focus is on formatting the lines in a way that shows the parallelism. Our rubrics on poetry focus almost entirely on instructions about how to try to reflect the nature of Hebrew poetry through special formatting. We had principles for how to format poetry, but we did not create a set number of forms. We looked at every poem and every line on its own. 12 We format Hebrew poetry as parallel poetic lines. If two lines are parallel, they should have the same left margin. If the second line of the verse is simply a run-on of the verse, it should be indented one tab= two spaces on the ruler. God, we have heard with our ears. Our fathers have told us the work you worked in their days, in days long ago. Lines of poetry that are subordinate to a preceding line may be indented or kept flush left, depending on the structure of the poem. There are a number of complications in formatting Hebrew poetry: In some books it is not always possible to say which text is poetry and which is not. (The same is true in modern English.) Poetry and prose can be mixed within paragraphs. Individual psalms do not always follow a consistent form or style of parallelism throughout. The main thing we are trying to indicate by the formatting is the nature of the parallelism. This is a subjective judgment in some cases This type of line formatting was not a feature of the original Hebrew text. We determined the poetic structure only by analysis of the Hebrew words. Having a visible structure on the page was not particularly important for the original users of Psalms because most of the recipients were not seeing the text but only hearing it sung to them. Saving on the cost of paper or parchment by lack of margins and white space was more important than creating a visible display of the format. The flow of the present printed Hebrew text of psalms is indicated by punctuation and by the musical accents attached to the text. In early texts the proper reading was taught by the mouth of the teacher to the ear of the student reader. There are a number of other considerations beyond parallelism: Except in poetry, for the most part, we follow normal English word order: subject, verb, object, even if the Hebrew or Greek has fronted the object for emphasis. In prose, we use fronting of emphatic words sparingly and only if it sounds normal in English. Emphatic fronting is common in biblical narrative, and EHV translators frequently retained it, but reviewers were in favor of using it less frequently than the Hebrew does. There are other ways to emphasize direct objects, such as switching the construction from active to passive, which fronts the object as the subject. Hebrew frequently uses third person plural active verbs as a substitute for the passive. In such cases using the English passive may catch the flavor of the text best. (One thousand tons of gold they brought=One thousand tons of gold were brought.) Hebrew poetry often uses a technique called gapping in which a key element of a sentence such as the main verb occurs in only one of the two parallel lines. In such cases 13 it may be necessary to supply the missing element in the English translation of the second line, either for clarity or to make poetic lines of relatively equal length. An extreme example is when the negative occurs in only one of the two parallel lines but applies to both. If the second line in synonymous parallelism is an incomplete echo of the first line, it may nevertheless be separated from the first line by a comma in order to mark the poetic structure and assist in the reading. Our punctuation of poetry is intended to be a guide to poetic reading and singing, so it does not always follow grammatical necessity but indicates where the poetic pauses are. (The same is also true in long prose sentences). Guiding the reader takes priority over mechanical rules about the type of clauses being linked. Poetic devices such as emphatic word order or chiasm can sometimes be retained since unusual word order is common also in English hymns and poetry, but we use this cautiously. Rare English words will be used more commonly in our translations of poetry, since Hebrew poetry frequently uses rare or unusual words to create the poetic parallelism. In parallelism we use two different words in English if there are two different words in Hebrew. To preserve parallelism, clauses that seem like dependent clauses in English may be formatted as independent sentences. For example, an independent sentence may start with because or for. Knowledge of these formatting rules is not necessary for English readers, but may be useful for composers who are using or altering the EHV for musical compositions. To Sum Up Our goal in translating Hebrew poetry was not to produce what sounds most poetic to English ears, but what best reflects the nature of Hebrew poetry, which is not primarily the echoing of sounds but the arrangement of the words. Our approach was to try to reflect the nature of Hebrew poetry, not to create English poetic features that are not part of the Hebrew technique. English poetic techniques like rhyming belong more to “hymn versions” of psalms, which began with the psalm hymns of Isaac Watts and have an honored place in English worship. 14