First the Hebrew, I’ve used the MT with no emendations. Not because I don’t think there are any that belong, but because I don’t have anything other the Rhalfs and the Targums available to me at present. I will likely make some text critical comments at some point, but because I don’t have the requisite materials I won’t be fully checking the text against the versions.

מזמור לדוד יהוה מי־יגור באהלך מי־ישכן בהר קדשך׃
הולך תמים ופעל צדק ודבר אמת בלבבו׃
לא־רגל על־לשנו לא־עשה לרעהו רעה וחרפה לא־נשא על־קרבו׃
נבזה בעיניו נמאס ואת־יראי יהוה יכבד נשבע להרע ולא ימר׃
כספו לא־נתן בנשך ושחד על־נקי לא לקח עשה־אלה לא ימוט לעולם׃

And now the English,

1. A David Psalm. O YHWH, who may sojourn in your tent? Who may dwell in your holy hill?
2. The one who walk blamelessly and who does righteousness and who speaks truth in his heart
3. He does not slander with his tongue, he does not do to his friend evil, and a reproach he does not life up against his companion
4. In his eyes the vile person is despised and the reverancers of YHWH he honors, he swears to harm and does not change
5. His money he does not give with interest and a bribe against the innocent he does not take. The one who does these things will never fail

At the end of the last chapter I complained that Berlin was not fully analyzing narratives, but taking bits and pieces from each. This is a necessary evil at times, but I much prefer to go through a text and see how what someone is purposing actually works. In this regard chapter four absolutely satisfied my earlier complaint. Berlin was able to step through the narrative and point out where one can see the things she discussed in earlier chapters taking place over the course of a single, self-contained narrative. The chapter near perfectly accomplishes this goal. I might have preferred a layout more like a commentary, moving through the narrative by sections, rather than discussing each poetic device, thus jumping throughout the narrative. However, Berlin says from the beginning that this is not a commentary and she is kind enough to point readers to what she calls “literarily sensitive” commentaries.

There are two areas, in particular, in which I found Berlin’s comments interesting. First, her discussion of point of view in relation to characters. In essence she concludes that although Naomi is the central character of the story and the “perceptual” point of view is hers, Ruth represents the interest point of view. Berlin concludes that this makes Ruth into the hero of the story. Her examples from Ruth are convincing. This nuance in terms of point of view is really quite sophisticated and impressive.

The second area of discussion I found interesting was the function of hinneh. She argues for three functions, 1) in direct discourse registering surprise, “look!” 2) to focus and indicate point of view or a change therein, in other words to show that the contents of a particular clause are seen from the perspective of a certain character; 3) to introduce a new character, Berlin suggests translating as “at that point…” I think each of these make sense. Hinneh is one of those words that are simply fascinating. I would like to see if her three suggestions for hinneh work in narratives outside of Ruth as well.

The next post in this series will cover chapters five and six. I’m looking forward to chapter five since it covers the relationship between poetics and historical-critical methods.

I do have a slight bone to pick with one thing Chris said. I’ll quote it in full:

1. Start with the fundamentals. Help your students know that the Bible is quite simple about 1) God 2) humans and 3) how humans interact with God and each other for the sake of the world. For example, the creation narrative is not God’ science thesis it is a biography of God.

Chris, are we reading the same Bible? Because the one I’m reading is really quite complex about God, humans and how humans interact with God. I’m not even just talking about the complex, culturally bound rituals that the Israelites used to interact with God. That Old Testament paragon, David, has a rather complex relationship with God; to say nothing of his relations with other human beings! Job may be among the most complex stories about a human and his relationship with God ever devised. In addition we have a God who at times kills people for slight infractions (Nadab and Abihu) and at other times lets things slide (the aforementioned David). I’m not even talking about theological diversity within the text, or questions of hermeneutics. The Bible is complex, not simple.

I do agree that Genesis is not God’s science thesis. Chris is absolutely right there. But I’m not sure that what we need to do with students is try to make the Bible simpler. I think what we actually need to do is help them engage in the Bible’s amazing, beautiful and ultimately real complexity. Our lives are–at times–hopelessly complex, why should the Bible be any different? Students don’t want simple. They want authentic. The Bible is among the most authentic books I have ever read. I think it is high time that youth pastors and others who are spiritual mentors to teens begin showing students the full range of complexity in Scripture. Help them engage with that. Don’t tell them the Bible is simple and if they just read for five minutes a day their lives will get better. That’s a lie. Tell them the Bible is hard. It’s difficult to understand if you don’t study it. It is confounding sometimes. But it’s also worth reading because it’s the story of God and humans and how we interact and clash with God and each other. It’s about life. It can help you, but probably not with the paltry sum of five minutes a day devoted to it. This is what we need to tell the young people we shepherd.

So, if we ought to be telling people this, why do we so often tell them something quite different? I think, in this case, the answer is simple. Wrestling with the Bible in all its authentic glory is difficult for us just like it’s difficult for students. We want to be able to give them a neat package of faith that they can put under their bed and live with. It’s not only what we want, it’s what their parents want and it’s what our pastors want. But it simply isn’t what’s best for students. The other problem is that dealing with the Bible honestly means we have to study it more. That might mean less time to devote to planning that awesome game. How many youth pastors even know Hebrew and Greek, let alone some basic ancient near eastern history? Yet those same youth pastors think they can wrestle with the Bible in an authentic way, and teach their students to do the same? I have my doubts (requisite disclaimer: I’m not saying God hates people who don’t know Hebrew and Greek. I’m saying knowing these things is essential to digging deeply into Scripture). What’s worse, most of our curriculum in youth ministry is designed by people who have little or no formal training in Biblical studies. Who would use a biology textbook written by someone who has a single undergraduate degree in psychology? No one! Yet we essentially do the same thing when we use curriculum designed by someone who has an undergrad degree in youth ministry, but little formal training in Bible.

My point is not to disparage youth pastors and others who work with teens. Rather, it’s to say that we need to step up and do the hard work that we need to do to help students. There are countless online classes where you could learn Hebrew and Greek. Picking up a few books on ancient near eastern history and reading them is also easily accomplished. Building a collection of good commentaries and consulting them during lesson preparation is also a straight forward way of quickly beginning to equip yourself to study the Bible well. Alternatively, visit your local Bible college or seminary library to cut down on expenses.

In short, I think Chris is on to some good stuff, and in fairness he does say “start with the fundamentals,” not end with them. But still, we need to be upfront with students from the start: the Bible is a hard book to understand, but we still have to do our best.

In an effort to further illustrate the importance of some of these concepts, I plan to begin a series on Psalm 15. On the one hand, I hope this helps my readers who haven’t had the benefit of a formal education in Bible to better understand some of the ideas I’m espousing. At the same time, I’m sure that, as I work my way through Psalm 15 from a variety of angles, there will be lots of opportunity for those who have had formal training in Bible to interact. In fact, I’d really enjoy it if we could manage to strike up conversations in the comments at a variety of knowledge levels. Some posts will be more technical by nature (for instance, grammar), but I hope that each of the posts dealing with Psalm 15 are helpful and interesting to all readers.

This, of course, also has the advantage of giving me the opportunity to work through a passage of Hebrew and study grammar, form, genre, literary issues, etc. This will help me learn, as will–I hope–the comments here. So, in the next week or so we’ll begin talking about Psalm 15.

In this chapter Berlin essentially gives an explanation and examination of point of view within the Biblical corpus. She begins by arguing that biblical narrative does, in fact, have various points of view. To be sure, point of view in the biblical narrative is quite different from point of view in modern literature, but Berlin shows convincingly that it does exist. Using the snippets of the Joseph she points out how the narrator creates tension with a distant point of view by not allowing the reader to become privy to Joseph’s own thoughts on the events which transpire. Having reread the Joseph narrative I certainly see what Berlin is saying. Berlin also pulls various examples from other biblical books that serve to illustrate her point.

Which leads me to, perhaps, my largest complaint with this chapter. Berlin pulls from various biblical books which is certainly appropriate to show that point of view is not limited to one or two narratives. However, because she only pulls sections of each narrative, and sometimes very small sections, it is difficult to see how the narrator is changing point of view within a particular story. I suppose this is unavoidable, to some extent. I also have hope that chapter four will put this complaint to rest, as it is an application of chapters two and three to the Book of Ruth. Regardless, Berlin does give an excellent overview of point of view, showing that, as she puts it, the biblical “narrative is one with depth and sophistication; one in which conflicting viewpoints may vie for validity. It is this that gives biblical narrative interest and ambiguity.”

Psalm 98.4-6, Hebrew Text:
הריעו ליהוה כל־הארץ פצחו ורננו וזמרו׃
זמרו ליהוה בכנור בכנֹור וקול זמרה׃
בחצצרות וקול שופר הריעו לפני המלך יהוה׃

Translation:
Shout to YHWH, all the Earth! Be joyful and cry out and make music!
Make music with the lyre! With the lyre and the sound of melody!
With trumpets and the sound of the horn give a blast before the king, YHWH!

This translation is my own, and different from any English Bible translations I’ve seen. It is not dissimilar to John Goldingay’s translation in his Psalms commentary, however. He prefers “resound” for the verb רנן whereas I prefer “cry out.” Otherwise our translations are quite similar, though I arrived at mine independently. One thing that this translation illustrates is the lack of specific musical terms in verse four until the final word.

Verse four contains four verbs. Each of them are masculine plural imperatives, and only the final verb is a specifically music term. רוע, the first verb, means simply “to shout.” It is mostly used in the context of war or battle, but may also be used generally for loud shouts or, as BDB puts it, “in public worship with music and sacrifice.” Its semantic range also extends to sounding a trumpet or horn, as in verse six of this passage.

The second verb used is פצח, a very rare verb (occurs 8x in the Hebrew Bible, 6 of which are in Isaiah). The verb often parallels רנן or a derived noun, as in this passage. CDCH understands the verb to mean “be jubilant,” and I have rendered it as “be joyful” in the translation above. It is possible that this verb, and the next one (רנן), go together and form a single idea, hence the common translation “break forth with song,” or the like. I am not convinced, however, that the verb רנן means “sing” except peripherally. Instead, I think the verb means to cry out, in either joy or sorrow (cf. TWOT). According to the lexicons and my own brief survey, the verb refers to cries or shouts of joy or sorrow, depending on the context. It’s certainly possible that such cries could take the form of song, but it is not necessarily so. Given these data, it is possible that one might translate the two verbs “give a joyful cry” or something similar.

The final verb is זמר, a specifically musical term. It may mean either to play an instrument (which may well be the case in the present context, given the instruments that are mentioned) or to sing a song. It is often used in parallel with שיר, which does mean “sing.” However, after looking at each of the occurrences of זמר in the HB, I don’t see any reason that it couldn’t mean simply “make music,” which may or may not have anything to do with singing. As such it would make a perfect parallel for שיר; the latter dealing with vocal music and the former with instrumental music. However I’d need to look more closely at various passages before I’d be comfortable actually making that case. Either way, the fact remains that none of the verbs in verse four refers unambiguously to singing. That isn’t to say that singing can’t possibly be in mind, but simply that it is by no means the central focus of the verse/psalm. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what many Christians force the psalm to say. In fairness, many English translations offer a translation which does seem slanted towards songs, even though the verbs themselves appear–to me–to have less to do with song specifically and more to do with loud shouts generally and instrumentation specifically.

Also of interest from a structural perspective is that verse four ends with the imperative of זמר and verse five begins with the same form of the same verb. Verse five also ends with a noun derived from the same root (translated “melody” above). Verse six continues the prep+noun structure of verse five. It concludes with a similar phrase to what began this section, forming a kind of inclusio. In fact, the Hebrew verb translated “give a blast” in verse six, above, is the same verb used in verse four and translated “shout,” (cf. CDCH, Holladay).

It is important to remember that verses four to six are part of the larger psalm. This section of the psalm comes after the recounting of YHWH’s deeds in verses 1b-3 (verse 1a, coincidently, is a far better verse to mention if one wishes to talk about singing). These verses describe the response the psalmist expects after hearing of the great deeds of YHWH. Verses 4-6 discuss what are arguably human responses which eventually give way (via the transition in verse 7) to the responses of creation itself. The psalm is much more than a command to sing. It is a call to praise YHWH in a variety of ways; indeed, a call to join all of creation in praising YHWH.

“God says make a joyful noise, not sing beautifully. So it doesn’t matter if you can sing, please come do special music or join the choir. Sing loudly in church!”

The second goes something like this:

“Now God commands us to make a joyful noise. That means all of you need to sing out this morning, joyfully even if it doesn’t sound good. There’s no excuse, God wants to hear you sing!”

Below, I argue that such interpretations apply the verse in exactly the wrong ways.

In fairness, the first example is simply taking the verse out of context. I don’t mean to argue that God is going to throw lightning bolts at those who don’t sing well. Whether or not a person who sounds like a dying moose should sing in the choir is an issue for each church to deal with, the Bible simply does not address the issue. The second interpretation is more troublesome, however, because it makes this verse into a command that all Christians need to sing during a worship service. There are several reasons why this is not a solid interpretation of Psalm 98.4.

1. Does “Joyful Noise” mean “Sing” in the first place? Technically, no. The Hebrew verb is רוע, which means to shout. As an example, it is used in 1 Samuel 17.20 of the warriors shouting the battle cry. Now, it is not impossible that a battle cry might take the form of a song, however it might also take the form of a pithy statement (“Remember the Alamo!”) or simply a savage scream (I’ll spare you a written example). It’s also used in Judges 15.14 of the Philistines shouting. In fact, the vast majority of the time, the word means simply “shout.” In the present context one might say that it is intended as a happy shout, but a shout nonetheless.

2. Is Psalm 98.4 meant to be a universal command? Again, no. The fact that one even has to explain this shows how evangelical churches are often woefully ignorant of anything approaching an idea of hermeneutics. Psalms often call people to action. But this action changes depending on the type of Psalm. In Lament Psalms–a different genre from the present psalm, to be sure–the speaker often calls for God to strike people dead, yet this is hardly a universal request for God to constantly strike people down. In the same way, the Psalmists sometimes call for people to shout, but that is hardly a universal cry for people to shout constantly. Psalm 150 calls for people to take up various instruments for use in praising God. However, if one of those instruments is missing, it hardly makes the worship invalid. Psalms are often celebratory, but they are always situational.

3. What does Psalm 98 tell people to do? Psalm 98 is a praise psalm which encourages the community of faith to give thanks and praise to God in a variety of ways. Shouting, singing, playing instruments, even roaring (cf. Ps. 98.7, one also has to remember that psalms make extensive use of metaphor). In my opinion, trying to make the Psalm into a command to sing loudly during a worship gathering significantly lessens its impact.