Psalm 102.13-23: Qualifications Rather Than Actions

Abstract

In Psalm 102 semantic contrasts abound, as is widely acknowledged in biblical scholarship. However, the contrasts on the syntactic level and on the level of the represented viewpoint have remained unnoticed, resulting in serious consequences for the translation of the tenses. The present analysis of the syntactic and narratological components of vv. 13-23 demonstrates that they express qualifications rather than actions. YHWH’s sovereignty presented in v. 13 and the syntactic arrangements in vv. 14-16 identify YHWH’s unique qualities: He is the one who feels compassion for Zion and his people, who rebuilds their city, and whose glory becomes perceptible for its inhabitants. The syntactic analysis also explains the uniqueness of Zion’s inhabitants for him, for they are set apart from the other nations in order to praise him (v. 19). Thus the linguistic structure confirms and reinforces the psalm’s understanding of a world divided into opposing realms.

Psalm 102 is rich in contrast. The transience of human life sketched through poetic language and metaphors is set in opposition to God’s eternity. ¹ Human days pass quickly, whereas YHWH’s ages go on for generations on end. Also the fate of the individual petitioner and the fate of Zion and its inhabitants are strikingly different: the individual is in dire straits and has no hope for a better future, whereas Zion is offered a hopeful future. In addition, the roles of Zion and the other nations are juxtaposed in their differences. While these semantic oppositions have been widely acknowledged in biblical scholarship, the contrasts on the syntactic level and on the level of the represented viewpoint have so far not received the attention they deserve, resulting in serious consequences for the translation of the tenses. The goal of this article is to analyse these two levels and explain their consequences for the understanding of vv. 13-23. In addition, it aims to show how these linguistic components confirm and reinforce the psalm’s understanding of a world divided into opposing realms. We start from the following, widely accepted (although variously labelled) structure of Ps 102: the superscription (v. 1) is followed by a petition (vv. 2-3), complaint (vv. 4-12), affirmation of trust (vv. 13-23), and a final section (vv. 24-29) that includes a second complaint (v. 24), petition (v. 25), and affirmation of trust (vv. 26-29). ² In this article I will focus on vv. 13-23. ³

Syntactic analysis of the compound nominal clauses in vv. 13-23

Correct syntactic parsing of predications has proven both problematic and intriguing for Hebraists. The distinction between a verbal clause and a nominal clause is clear: the predicate in a verbal clause is a verb form that expresses a temporal process and a course of action, whereas the predicate in a nominal clause is a nominal constituent that describes the entity represented by the subject (see J-M §154ea). Also widely shared is the view that nominal or verbless predication of the order subject–predicate usually expresses a predication whose central concern is to identify or classify the subject (see, e.g., Miller 1999, 5). An object of debate, however, is whether the concept of the compound nominal clauses is applicable to Biblical Hebrew (BH). ⁴ The majority of classical and modern BH grammars make a distinction between a simple nominal clause (NC) and a compound nominal clause (CNC). ⁵ In a NC the predicate is a nominal phrase (NP), that is, a substantive, adjective, participle, pronoun, or adverb, whereas in a CNC the predicate is a verbal clause. In this view, a CNC always opens with a NP that stands on its own and functions as subject, while it is followed by a verbal clause that functions as predicate; in short, CNC = NP + VC.

In strong opposition to this view, Walter Gross argued that the concept of the CNC is not fully applicable to Hebrew. ⁶ According to him, “on the level of grammar, clauses are to be grammatically distinguished not according to the fortuitously encountered word at the beginning of an utterance but according to the type of word in the predicate.” ⁷ He criticizes the concept of CNC also because it sets its sights almost exclusively on the first position in the clause and frequently on the aspect of focus or emphasis. In other words, in his opinion the position of the subject in the clause is not a criterion, because “variation in the order of the clausal constituents is characterized by a relatively high degree of freedom” (Gross 1999, 38). The questions can be raised why word order cannot be considered a criterion and why instead the type of word in the predicate is a more reliable criterion. Gross’s proposal met considerable criticism. In an extensive review of Gross’s work, Reinhard Lehman points to its various shortcomings (Lehman 2004). In his own linguistic studies of Hebrew and other Northwest Semitic languages, Lehman came to the conclusion that the grammatical category of the CNC is applicable to these languages (Lehman 1997). More recently, Karel Jongeling discusses Gross’s proposal and concludes that the “traditional term ‘compound nominal clause’ seems a very practical choice” and that the clause containing a verb in second position may be used in the overwhelming number of instances to describe a state and not an action (Jongeling 2008). In this study I will follow the traditional BH grammars and the modern linguistic studies of BH, ⁸ and build on the distinction between NC and CNC.

What characterizes a CNC is that the verbal clause (VC) predicates the subject: the VC designates a quality, property, condition, or state of the subject or to what class or category it can be assigned. CNCs are easily recognizable because they have a finite verb (either qatal or yiqtol) in the second place after the subject. A good example of CNCs with qatal verb forms is Ps 74.12-17. In this text, seven CNCs present qualifications of the deity, in which the sentences open with the subject אתה‎ “you” followed by a VC with a qatal verb form. ⁹ Three examples of CNCs with a yiqtol verb form in its VC can be found in Pss 1.6b; 5.13; and 26.11. ¹⁰

In 1995, Franz Sedlmeier published an article in Vetus Testamentum in which he explained the role and function of compound nominal sentences in Ps 102. He discusses vv. 2b, 4b, 9b, and 12b in the first section of the psalm to see whether they represent a CNC or whether the word order subject–VC is the result of a chiastic ordering. He concludes that v. 12b is indisputably a CNC (“I—like grass I wither”), since v. 12 does not show a chiastic but a parallel word order. In the last section of the psalm, he explains vv. 27, 28, and 29 as CNCs. With regard to the middle section (the section under discussion here), he pays attention to vv. 13a and 14a, and concludes that they are CNCs, since no chiastic pattern would account for the order subject–predicate in these verses.

v. 13a “But you, YHWH—forever you are enthroned.”

v. 14a “You—you arise and take pity on Zion.”

These clauses describe YHWH as the one whose royal might is forever and as the one who feels compassion for Zion. As Sedlmeier concludes, “It is not what YHWH is doing that stands at the heart of this verse, but who YHWH is.” ¹¹ Consequently, v. 14a does not express the expectation of an event in the (near) future, but is an expression of confidence: it confirms YHWH’s identity as a compassionate deity. Verse 13a stands in sharp contrast with the previous v. 12b where the petitioner is said to be like grass. This emphasis on the contrastive subjects is part of the larger network of oppositions in the psalm: The divine realm and the human realm are sketched as completely different.

I propose to read the other CNCs in vv. 13-23, namely those in vv. 19b and 20b, along the same lines: ¹²

v. 19b “A people . . .—it praises Yah.”

v. 20b “YHWH—from heaven he looks down at the earth.”

In both clauses the subject is set in front position. This first slot marks the prominence of the respective subjects, the people and YHWH. They are characterized by their contrastive actions: the people by their praise directed upwards to YHWH, the deity by his view from heaven downwards towards the earth. What counts is not the action as such, but the distinguishing features of this specific people and this specific deity. Therefore, vv. 19b and 20b mark YHWH’s identity as a compassionate deity and the people’s identity as those who praise Yah. For the translation of these verses a first conclusion can be drawn: vv. 19b and 20b should not be translated with future or modal tenses but with present tenses. They do not incite the audience to praise the Lord (“may the people praise Yah”) but classify his people in their praise of their lord, and identify YHWH as the one who notices the suffering of his people.

Represented viewpoints in the כי‎-clauses in vv. 13-23

After the CNC in v. 14a, there are three כי‎-clauses in vv. 14b, 14c, and 15a. Follingstad (2001) made a comprehensive analysis of the particles כי‎, אשר‎, והנה‎, and לאמר‎ as markers of the location of viewpoint. ¹³ These particles are “space builders”—that is to say, they generate a new mental space. A mental space is a model that shows “how the information in a discourse is partitioned and accessed and, in particular, which mental space constitutes the viewpoint space from which the information partitioned in other spaces is accessed” (Follingstad 2001, 161). As to the particle כי‎ (“because,” “for”), Follingstad demonstrates that it indicates that the viewpoint is shifted to the complement itself: כי‎ profiles the complement or the propositional content as a thought of the character involved. The following example given by Follingstad (2001, 161) is instructive. In a James Bond film, the character of Bond impersonates an industrialist named Grey. Another character is Ursula, and she does not know that Grey is really Bond. Now, two people are discussing the film, saying:

(1) Ursula thinks that Grey is handsome.

(2) Ursula thinks that Bond is handsome.

In the clause “Ursula thinks that Grey is handsome,” the speaker describes Ursula’s belief; she is responsible for the propositional content and the viewpoint is (indirectly) related to her. In the clause “Ursula thinks that Bond is handsome,” the reference to Bond shows that the viewpoint is that of the speaker who is describing Ursula’s belief. In both cases, Ursula is responsible for the propositional content: it is her opinion that Grey/Bond is handsome. Yet, clauses (1) and (2) represent a different partitioning of information: in the former the readers get access to the information through Ursula’s mind, in the latter through the speaker’s mind. In both clauses, the referent is the same person, namely, Bond, alias Grey, but he is accessed differently. ¹⁴

The three כי‎-clauses in Ps 102.14-15 offer information that is related to the deictic centre of the narrator, that is, the personal forms, the spatial coordinates, and the temporal coordinates are related to the narrator or psalmist. Hence, the viewpoint is with the narrator or psalmist. However, it is not as simple as it looks. Verse 14b, “for it is the time to be gracious to her,” begins with the particle כי‎, which is a space builder and, therefore, generates a new mental space: it profiles the complement or the propositional content as a thought of the character involved. The כי‎-clause indicates that the viewpoint is shifted from the narrator to the character YHWH and it expresses his thought. The same is true for v. 14c, “for the appointed time has come,” and for v. 15, “For your servants take delight in its stones and cherish its dust.” The particle כי‎ profiles the propositional content as a thought of the character YHWH. Thus, the thought attributed to YHWH is the point of access for the information in vv. 14b-15.

How do we know this? We have two indications. The first is the possessive pronoun “your” in “your servants” used in v. 15a, confirming that YHWH’s viewpoint is indirectly shared with us. If the thought were directly attributed to YHWH, we should have had “my servants” and a directly reported speech. And if the narrator’s viewpoint was shared, the text would have said “his servants.” Another indication is the content of v. 15a and v. 15b where the inhabitants of Zion are said to “take delight in stones and dust.” It seems rather unlikely that they are pleased with a ruined city. As prisoners and victims (see v. 21, where they are described as prisoners and people condemned to death), they cannot but groan and suffer. Only in YHWH’s mental space and sharing his perspective can the city’s ruinous state be interpreted as a transient stage that soon will be restored. The narrator anticipates this restoration through a picture of the situation from YHWH’s viewpoint: following his perspective, “it is time.” It is only in YHWH’s mental space that “the appointed time has come.”

This exposition has two consequences. The first is that the CNC in v. 14a and the כי‎-clauses in vv. 14b-15 are closely related. YHWH’s characterization in v. 14a as a compassionate deity functions as the condition for the narrator’s presentation of YHWH’s view that it is time to show his compassion. By sharing YHWH’s perspective, we get access to a world in which the ruins are already used as building stones for the restoration. Consequently, both the CNC in v. 14a and the כי‎-clauses in vv. 14b-15 that represent YHWH’s thoughts can best be translated with present tenses: “You—you arise and take pity on Zion, for it is time to show her compassion, for the appointed time has come, (in which) your servants take delight in its stones.” But there is yet another result. Now that we have become aware of YHWH’s represented viewpoint in v. 15a, we may look anew to the coherence of vv. 15 and 16. For also in v. 16b the possessive pronoun “your” in “your glory” indicates that we share YHWH’s viewpoint indirectly. This implies that vv. 15b, 16a, and 16b all depend on the כי‎-clause of v. 15a, and are to be translated with present tenses: “and cherish its dust, and nations fear the name of YHWH, and all kings of the earth your glory.”

An altogether different כי‎-clause is found in v. 17a. So far, in vv. 13-16, the deity is addressed directly, “you YHWH are the one who. . . . You are the one who raises and feels sorry for Zion” (the CNCs in vv. 13a and 14a), and vv. 15 and 16 are embedded in YHWH’s mental space. However, v. 17 shifts away from the direct address to YHWH, ¹⁵ and the subsequent verses also move away from self-referential elements (see Mandolfo 2002, 85). The particle כי‎ initiates this distinct voice in v. 17, and marks this shift from the character’s viewpoint to the narrator’s or psalmist’s viewpoint, and shows that he is responsible for the propositional content. The question, then, is whether the narrator expresses in v. 17a an assurance that YHWH will rebuild Zion, thus pointing to an action that will surely take place in the near future, or whether he refers to an already completed action, “for YHWH (has) built Zion.” The niphal נראה‎ in v. 17b evaluates Zion’s (re)construction as a resultative state (see next section), as an event in which YHWH’s glory has become perceptible for the inhabitants of that city. Therefore, it seems most likely that the psalmist sketches a picture of Zion’s reconstruction as if it had already taken place. In this way, he follows upon the footsteps of YHWH’s mental picture sketched in vv. 14-16 and adds a touch of reality to it.

Another כי‎-clause is presented in v. 20a, where YHWH is described as looking down from the height of his holiness and from heaven to earth. The possessive pronoun “his” in “his holiness” indicates that the deictic point remains with the narrator. It is a descriptive sentence. After the factual description in vv. 17-18 and in v. 19 (see below for a discussion of v. 19), v. 20 sketches a kind of realistic picture of the coming events in such a way that they seem already realized. The particle כי‎, then, marks a shift in viewpoint, because in contrast to the picture sketched in vv. 17-19 “from below” or from an earthly perspective, vv. 20-23 offer a picture from “above,” starting from YHWH’s heavenly position. Again, this event of YHWH’s looking downwards is presented as already having taken place. What is new, however, is that the deity’s motivation and intentions are explicitly spelled out in infinitive-construct clauses in vv. 21-22. This creates a certain ambiguity: the כי‎-clause in v. 20a and the following clauses, including the infinitive clauses, are the psalmist’s and he is responsible for the viewpoint, voice, and perspective. However, the propositional content of the event and the intentions are ascribed to YHWH’s mental space.

In short, the represented viewpoints in the כי‎-clauses of Ps 102.13-23 differ. Only those in vv. 14b, 14c, and 15a—and the clauses in v. 15b, 16a, and 16b that depend on them—represent YHWH’s thoughts and are a rhetorical instrument to convince the psalm’s readers that they can have confidence in YHWH, for he is (as the CNC in v. 14a defines him) a compassionate deity. In his view, the ruins of Zion are already rebuilt. In vv. 17-20 the psalmist follows suit, reinforcing YHWH’s view with his own.

Syntactic analysis of the niphal forms in verses 17b, 19a, and 19b

In the last three decades a great number of studies on the niphal have been published. ¹⁶ Data sets including all occurrences of the niphal in the Hebrew Bible have been analysed, and at present some kind of consensus has been reached in that the niphal is considered not to mark the reflexive voice, but the middle voice and medio-passive voice. ¹⁷ That is to say, the niphal indicates that a subject is involved in an action and at the same time is affected by the event. Another feature of the niphal is that it predominantly focuses on the resultative state, the disposition or modal conditions of this action, but not on its cause, source, or external agents. ¹⁸ Niphal usages of transitive verbs mark actions of the subject who is the agent/experiencer and the patient at the same time. Niphal usages of intransitive verbs mark the circumstance, quality, probability, or modality of the subject, in which the roles of agent/experiencer and patient merge into one configuration. We take these views as the starting point of our investigation of the three usages of finite niphal verb forms in Ps 102.13-23: נראה‎ in v. 17b, תכתב‎ in v. 19a, and נברא‎ in v. 19b.

The verbal clause in v. 17b contains the niphal qatal of ראה‎: נראה בכבודו‎ “he appeared in his glory.” In general, the verb ראה‎ can figure in the cognitive domains of perception, cognition, and communication. ¹⁹ The active voice (qal and piel) of ראה‎ expresses the event in which someone sees, gets to know, or communicates. When the niphal is used instead, the event is marked in such a way that the subject is both involved in and affected by the action, and other subjects are involved as beneficiaries or receivers of the action. In Ps 102, v. 17a describes YHWH’s building of Zion (qal qatal) and thus marks it as a process of construction that is completed in the past, while the asyndetically connected v. 17b contains the niphal qatal נראה‎, which reflects on this construction process and qualifies it as “he appeared in his glory.” This evaluative sentence characterizes the construction of Zion as an event in which YHWH’s glory has become perceptible for the inhabitants of that city. It therefore represents a resultative state.

In the verbal clause in v. 19a, תכתב זאת לדור אחרון‎, the yiqtol form תכתב‎ expresses a non-past time and a non-complete action that can be translated with the present or future tense and refers to an incomplete writing-event (see BHRG §19.1). The agent who brings about this event is not mentioned. The niphal is, therefore, an anti-causative middle; ²⁰ that is to say, it marks the event of writing without mentioning its cause or agent (“it is written”) and marks a resultative state. The nominal phrase לדור אחרון‎ indicates the audience for which this is intended: “this is written for generations to come.”

The next sentence in v. 19b is a CNC with the subject עם‎ “people,” in fronted position. The niphal participle of the verb ברא‎ (meaning will be discussed below) marks the disposition of the subject עם‎ “people,” to which it is attached as an adjective. As such the participle does not express a past or future tense, but a present state that qualifies the people referred to. The niphal form marks this state as a result of a previously performed action designated by the verb ברא‎ and as a state that both involved and affected the subject. So, the people are defined and affected by their state of being ברא‎-ed.

In the last decade a fierce discussion has taken place regarding the meaning of the verb ברא‎ in the Hebrew Bible. ²¹ Does it designate “to create,” as is the standard view, or “to separate,” as some scholars claim? Here we consider which of the two options is more likely for Ps 102. First, the standard view: if ברא‎ designates “to create,” v. 19 should be translated “a created people—it praises Yah.” Because this meaning is difficult to understand, most translators add “new”—“the newly created people”—and translate the VP יהלל־יה‎ with a future tense: “a newly created people will praise Yah.” But then v. 19a also has to be understood as expressing a future tense: “this will be written for generations to come.” If so, the new people do not yet exist but will be born in the future. However, because v. 19b is a CNC which does not express an action but contains a qualification of the people (the CNC does not tell us what the people do but what they are) and the niphal participle refers to the resultative state of a previously executed action, a future tense and a VC for v. 19b have to be rejected.

The two counterarguments against the first option of ברא‎ as “to create” bring us to the other option: ברא‎ as “to separate,” in which case v. 19 would be translated, “this is written for generations to come; and a separated people/a people set apart—it praises Yah.” This people separated from other nations would then refer back to the inhabitants of the city of Zion. This seems to be a plausible option, and it confirms the psalm’s understanding of the world divided into opposing realms. The contrast between the realm of the deity and that of human beings is represented by YHWH in heaven and humans on earth as is specified in v. 20b. The opposition between the people elected by YHWH and the other peoples and kingdoms from which they are set apart is at the root of the distinction between Zion and the others in vv. 15-16, and the rationale for this contrast is specified here in v. 19b: this specific, “set apart” people is the nation that praises YHWH. Closely linked to the latter is the opposition between Zion or Jerusalem as the place where the name of YHWH is proclaimed in v. 22, and the other nations and kingdoms that live elsewhere but are allowed or even invited to come and assemble in Jerusalem (v. 23a) in order to fear YHWH’s name (v. 16a), to see his כבוד‎ “glory” (v. 16b), and, finally, to serve YHWH (v. 23b).

Conclusion

The semantic contrasts in Psalm 102 are generally acknowledged in biblical scholarship, namely those between transient human life and God’s eternity, between the fate of the individual petitioner and the fate of Zion, and between the role of Zion and the other nations. However, the contrasts on the syntactic level and on the level of the represented viewpoint have so far not received the attention they deserve, resulting in serious consequences for the translation of the tenses. In the present article a study is made of these two levels and focuses on (1) the distinction between verbal clauses that present actions and the CNCs that qualify a subject, (2) the differences between the clauses that represent narrator’s viewpoints and the כי‎-clauses that represent character’s thoughts, and (3) the distinctive features of clauses set in active voice (expressed by qal, piel, and hiphil verb forms) and clauses set in middle voice (expressed by niphal verb forms).

This has led to the following conclusions. The CNCs in vv. 13a-14a as well as the כי‎-clauses in vv. 14b-16b should be translated with present tenses, since they picture the deity in terms of his qualities as eternally enthroned and compassionate towards Zion. YHWH’s concern regarding the state of Zion is based on this characterization; once a ruined city, now, in his mind, it is already restored and is a sign for other nations to respect his name. On the other hand, the qal verbal clause in vv. 17a refers to a completed action, “for YHWH (has) built Zion,” with the niphal verbal clause in v. 17b as its consequence, “thus he appeared in his glory.” This evaluative sentence characterizes the construction of Zion as an event in which YHWH’s glory has become perceptible for the inhabitants of that city. The verbal clauses in v. 18 express a past action as well: “he has turned to the prayer of the destitute and he has not spurned their prayer.” The yiqtol form תכתב‎ in the verbal clause in v. 19a expresses a non-past time and refers to an incomplete and still ongoing writing-event, “it is written,” while the CNC with the niphal participle in v. 19b characterizes the people in their quality of being “set apart” from the other nations and its effect. Hence, we suggested the translation, “this is written for generations to come: a people set apart—it praises Yah.” Furthermore, vv. 20-22, with the opening כי‎-clause in v. 20a and the following dependent clauses, are set in present tense. “For he looks down . . ., YHWH—from heaven he looks down . . . to listen . . . to release . . . to recount.” The final v. 23 lays out the temporal condition against which these actions are set: “when the nations come together, the kingdoms, to serve YHWH.”

In view of these considerations, the proposed translation of Ps 102.13-23 is:

13a But you, YHWH—forever you are enthroned;

13b your fame endures throughout the generations.

14a You—you arise and take pity on Zion,

14b for it is time to show her compassion,

14c for the appointed time has come,

15a for your servants take delight in its stones,

15b and cherish its dust,

16a and nations fear the name of YHWH,

16b and all kings of the earth your glory.

17a For YHWH has built Zion;

17b thus he appeared in his glory.

18a He has turned to the prayer of the destitute

18b and has not spurned their prayer.

19a This is written for generations to come:

19b a people set apart—it praises Yah.

20a For he looks down from his holy height;

20b YHWH—from heaven he looks down at the earth

21a to listen to the groans of the prisoner,

21b to release those condemned to death,

22a to recount the name of YHWH in Zion,

22b his praises in Jerusalem,

23a when the nations come together,

23b the kingdoms, to serve YHWH.

The analysis of the linguistic components of Ps 102.13-23 has demonstrated that vv. 13a, 14a, 19b, and 20b express qualifications rather than actions. The nature of YHWH’s sovereignty, declared in v. 13, is delineated in the following verses, with the conclusion in v. 23 expressing his intention that all nations will acknowledge his lordship. The syntactic arrangements in vv. 14-19 identify YHWH’s unique qualities: He is the one who feels compassion for Zion and his people, who rebuilds their city, and whose glory becomes visible to its inhabitants. These arrangements also explain the uniqueness of the city’s inhabitants for YHWH, for the compound nominal clause defines their unique quality in v. 19b: they are set apart from the other nations in order to praise him. Thus the linguistic structure confirms and reinforces the psalm’s understanding of the world divided into opposing realms: the realm of YHWH enthroned in heaven forever, on the one hand, and human beings on earth, on the other hand; the earthly realm divided into one people set apart in Zion to praise Yah, on the one hand, and the other nations and kingdoms, on the other hand; yet, the latter may come to Zion and join its inhabitants in serving YHWH, as is the deity’s intention.