Talk:Psalms/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Including full-text, and which languages?
Centralized discussion here. Please let's not drag this out over 150 different articles.
- @Yoninah:
- @Gerda Arendt:
- @JohnThorne:
- @Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
- Hello. Now that I have you all together, I would like to ask two related questions:
- Do we need the full text of each Psalm in all 150 individual articles?
- If we do need the full text, should we include non-English translations such as Hebrew? Elizium23 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Replying question #1:
- The inclusion of the full text of a song (just as each individual Psalm) is agreed by the editors actively contributing to these articles. I concur with the practice of adding the text of Psalms as long as it does not infringe copyrights. JohnThorne (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- We don't "need" but it's helpful to have to text to refer to. It's common practise to have text and - if available - translation in articles about hymns, see Nun danket all und bringet Ehr. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Replying question #2:
- The related Psalms are originally written in Hebrew, so, in my opinion, it is necessary to include the text in that language. JohnThorne (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hebrew is not a translation, but the original from which all others are derived. Highly useful, but of course with a translation, please. Latin and German are useful when notable music is composed on these texts, but possibly better in the composition articles, where a relation of text and music will be needed, see Der 100. Psalm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Notes:
- Some precedents to this in Christian articles can be observed in Doxology and Lord's Prayer, which include full texts in ancient languages. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- If we do not include any text for the Psalms, the "Background and themes" section will make no sense. In addition to discussing the history of the psalm and who it refers to (Jewish sources say David and Mashiach; Christian sources say Jesus), this section often highlights specific verses in the psalm and explains the use of specific words. Additionally, the "Uses" and "Musical settings" sections actively cite specific lines in the psalm under discussion. All this will be meaningless without the text in front of the reader. We cannot expect him to scroll down to External links and wade through the list of entries to find the Hebrew or English translation that works for him.
- In overhauling the Psalm pages after years of inconsistent formatting and POV additions, Gerda Arendt and I decided to include two main texts: the Hebrew and the King James Version. But the Hebrew is useless to English-language readers without a translation. We hope to find a public-domain translation that is reasonable and not archaic or anachronistic, but have as a fallback the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version. Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think that having the full text is a good idea, as it facilitates understanding of all kinds of points that are raised in the article. I am not sure the Hebrew is needed or even useful, so remain neutral to weakly opposed to that. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Debresser often (e.g. see Psalm 21) the KJV has as its first verse the second verse of the Hebrew original, and the discussion will point that out. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to just offer an English translation of the Hebrew rather than the Hebrew original and translation side-by-side. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comments from jfh:
- 1. This is covered in WP guideline WP:NPS, which says to only include short full texts that are not "uncomfortably long." Based on that, Psalm 23, in my opinion, should include the full text, and Psalm 119 should not. But most of them probably should, because most are only 1 or 2 stanzas. This keeps the article to an appropriate length for an encyclopedia aricle. I like to use Template:Wikisource in the section that discusses the content when the full text is not included. Replying to Yoninah, a good synopsis section will sufficiently summarize the content such that it is readable without making it necessary to read the entire text. For example, Illiad includes a synopsis.
- 2. This is an English encyclopedia. MOS:FOREIGN says to use foreign words sparingly, and that just makes sense, because all of our audience reads English and the tiniest minority of it reads Hebrew. Replying again to Yoninah, if there is discussion in the article on a Hebrew word, it is useful in the discussion text to discuss the meaning of the word, but it is not helpful to give non-Hebraists the entire Psalm in Hebrew. For example, I (a monoglot) have a commentary on the Psalms designed for non-Hebraists, and occasionally the author will discuss particular words where the translation is uncertain, but it would not be helpful for me to look at the full Hebrew Psalm. Further, it is probably more helpful to use a transliteration when Hebrew words are discussed rather than Hebrew text, as my commentary does, because our readers won't be able to understand the Hebrew characters. Also, it is not true that the Hebrew never changes, as textual criticism changes over time and new manuscripts are discovered. I don't understand why so many of our religion articles include so many foreign languages, but that's WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Jfhutson (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for good points. All psalms that were already expanded have the prominent link to the King James Version (KJV) on Wikisource. However, the psalms were original Hebrew, and a translation from the original often differs from the KJV. Never was it suggested to have the Hebrew alone, only in connection with a translation. The translations were removed in a recent raid as protected by copyright (which is something religious here). A quick comparison of the difference of translations will often be useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting. Was there a discussion somewhere re copyright? I would think most Psalms are short enough for fair use. I don't think showing several translations is necessarily helpful, maybe if they are carefully selected. Otherwise the reader just gets to pick their favorite. I would think if we did show two, it would be KJV for recognizability and NRSV as the most accurate according to biblical scholars. --Jfhutson (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for good points. All psalms that were already expanded have the prominent link to the King James Version (KJV) on Wikisource. However, the psalms were original Hebrew, and a translation from the original often differs from the KJV. Never was it suggested to have the Hebrew alone, only in connection with a translation. The translations were removed in a recent raid as protected by copyright (which is something religious here). A quick comparison of the difference of translations will often be useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- This, of course, begs the question whether we can include copyrighted material in links.
- I understand that if the Hebrew text with English translation is not being provided, the "Background and themes" section will need to quote the pertinent verses in its discussion of words and verses. The translation of Hebrew words would have to be the one used by the English sources being cited. It's not ideal, but it's workable.
- Providing a synopsis would open us up to all sorts of systemic bias. Different Christian sects have different synopses. Classical Judaism has its own take on what the psalm is saying. I think we should stick to "Background and themes" and skip the synopsis.
- Jfhutson, I don't know where you got this idea that the Hebrew changes. Textual analysis doesn't change the Hebrew, it just interprets it in its own way. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the Torah has had the same text for thousands of years. Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Formally, we can't use the direct external links within the prose. I think we might present the template for the wikisource right there (instead at the bottom in external links), as jfh suggested, and say: Hebrew-English text<ref>[https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26a0.htm Psalm xyz] proper citation</ref>. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: are you saying we wouldn't include the KJV in the article for Psalms that are not too long? The KJV is in the public domain. I think I've changed my mind on the question of where we could include copyrighted translations under fair use, I think it would just be a few lines we could quote. But the nice thing about the KJV is that it's out of copyright. As for the a link to the interlinear, I don't think it's the most helpful thing to link for the reasons I've stated, but at least we wouldn't have the whole thing quoted in the article. Regarding synopses, if we can't summarize the content of a text in a neutral way, it's going to be difficult to write an encyclopedia article. If there are disagreements about meaning, you cite the dominant interpreters. This is not particular to the Psalms. Most poetry will have contested interpretations. --Jfhutson (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jfhutson: the KJV is undisputed. You can put it wherever you want. But it is not the only English translation of the psalms, and that is the sticking point. See for example Psalm 2#Controversy. Just quoting KJV engenders a lot of systemic bias.
- I'm going offline for Shabbat now. I can reply again in about 28 hours. Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: are you saying we wouldn't include the KJV in the article for Psalms that are not too long? The KJV is in the public domain. I think I've changed my mind on the question of where we could include copyrighted translations under fair use, I think it would just be a few lines we could quote. But the nice thing about the KJV is that it's out of copyright. As for the a link to the interlinear, I don't think it's the most helpful thing to link for the reasons I've stated, but at least we wouldn't have the whole thing quoted in the article. Regarding synopses, if we can't summarize the content of a text in a neutral way, it's going to be difficult to write an encyclopedia article. If there are disagreements about meaning, you cite the dominant interpreters. This is not particular to the Psalms. Most poetry will have contested interpretations. --Jfhutson (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Formally, we can't use the direct external links within the prose. I think we might present the template for the wikisource right there (instead at the bottom in external links), as jfh suggested, and say: Hebrew-English text<ref>[https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26a0.htm Psalm xyz] proper citation</ref>. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Translation of the Hebrew original to English
Ok, so the problem is Christian bias. So does using the KJV and JPS next to each other, as mentioned above, work as a compromise? I don't think it's perfect, but perhaps it's the best we can do to reduce bias. Using the NRSV would in my opinion be optimal if not for the copyright issue (in the Psalm 2 case it does not use the word son and includes a footnote that the meaning is uncertain). --Jfhutson (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Returning to discussion of using a freely-licensed English translation for each Psalm page. I have just started an expansion of Psalm 31, and it is apparent that some translation of the original Hebrew text is needed here. (Similarly, take a look at Psalm 97, among many others.) Moreover, the King James Version often starts with verse 2 of the original Hebrew text, skipping the first verse in the Hebrew.
- As mentioned above, we have the Jewish Publication Society translation from 1917 at Wikisource. While it does not always align with contemporary translations, and even mirrors the KJV in cases, we can note the alternate translations when giving over the classical Jewish interpretations in the discussion under "Background and themes". [As an example, I have inserted the public-domain JPS text in Psalm 85. Note that both the KJV and the JPS Bible translate verse 10 (KJV)/verse 11 (Hebrew) as "kissed", but we discuss the alternate translation of the Hebrew word neshek in the Background and themes section.]
- I should note that there is a danger in piling on translations, that it will inspire someone else to insert the Latin text as well; see Psalm 51. That's why I think it's a good idea to put the Hebrew and English versions side by side, so we can present the original and the translation. But I'm sure someone will always find a way to insert the Latin too.
- The only full translation of Psalms that I can find on Wikisource is the JPS 1917 Bible. There is a page about Tehillim, but most of the Psalms are untranslated.
- Pinging @Elizium23:@Gerda Arendt:@JohnThorne:@Jfhutson: to join this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, and agree with all you say. I support no Latin full text, however, the Latin beginning - often the second verse - should appear as a frequent title of musical pieces based on it. Also please no full text in Greek and German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- For the psalms in English Wikipedia, I prefer to include the Hebrew version (the original language of the text; not-copyrighted, largely acceptable version) and English translation (not-copyrighted, largely used version, e.g. King James Version). Other languages such as Latin can be placed in the "Uses" section under the Christian/Catholicism subsections where the text is usually related to lectionaries or hymns. As for side by side, it is a matter of format, but other than that, it won't help much because Hebrew and English differ in many aspects. Placing the translation below the Hebrew text is preferable. Also, for the Hebrew text, there can be a column for the masorah, qere and ketiv or other notes pertaining to the ancient Hebrew text, which could provide useful information for the particular psalm. For the discrepancy in verse numbering, I have used this format in Psalm 76. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, JohnThorne, but how does that solve the problem when the KJV doesn't translate the first verse of Hebrew text? Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- For the psalms in English Wikipedia, I prefer to include the Hebrew version (the original language of the text; not-copyrighted, largely acceptable version) and English translation (not-copyrighted, largely used version, e.g. King James Version). Other languages such as Latin can be placed in the "Uses" section under the Christian/Catholicism subsections where the text is usually related to lectionaries or hymns. As for side by side, it is a matter of format, but other than that, it won't help much because Hebrew and English differ in many aspects. Placing the translation below the Hebrew text is preferable. Also, for the Hebrew text, there can be a column for the masorah, qere and ketiv or other notes pertaining to the ancient Hebrew text, which could provide useful information for the particular psalm. For the discrepancy in verse numbering, I have used this format in Psalm 76. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, now I see what you did in Psalm 76. I don't like it, because it adds the verse under the KJV translation. Most readers won't get that far. I am also uncomfortable with relying on the KJV as the English translation, as it is actually a translation of the Latin which is a translation of the Greek which is a translation of the Hebrew – three times removed. The JPS is more of a direct translation of the Hebrew. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: The rationale is that this Wikipedia entry should provide the Hebrew (original) text as a whole (with verse numbering just to make easier to refer to, or to annotate), then the English translation is presented "as is" (with verse numbering as found in that particular version). If there is discrepancy of verse numbering or textual variations (in Hebrew and/or in English) a subsection is added to clarify. This way the main psalm text in either languages will be clear. Now for Hebrew text, because it is in a table format, if there is a short note from ancient scribes or peculiar writings, a column can be added to the right of the text for that purpose. Otherwise, the explanation can be elaborated under "Uses" in the subsection of "Judaism". Can this be a compromise you seek? Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JohnThorne: I'm not looking for that kind of compromise. I am looking at it from the classical Jewish viewpoint; to me, the KJV is not accurate and actually introduces alternative philosophy (see Psalm 2). You are probably coming at it from the Christian viewpoint, wondering what is the big deal about skipping a line of the Hebrew text. I say keep the KJV in each article, but also include the Hebrew with an English translation that is hopefully closer to the source. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I do see your point, but in my opinion, adding an English translation for that purpose next to the Hebrew Bible will only cause confusion and much redundancy. First, which English translation to select (opening a version debate); second, to many people, most of the text will be almost the same in meaning, so they will only see "two English translations" against one Hebrew text. My suggestion is to leave two bodies of text in full and then to discuss particular verses in a separate subsection, referring to the verse numbers in Hebrew and in English (if differs), and put some translations there (both Jewish English versions and Christian versions) for comparison. Say in Psalm 2, in a new section "Commentary" and subsection "Judaism", you can put the opinions from the Jewish literature, which differ from the Christian literature. This will display the talking point more clearly. Regarding skipping the line, I prefer not to skip anything, including the title. Many bibles in other languages (e.g. Latin, Indonesian ("Bahasa Indonesia"), French, etc.) use the same numbering as in Hebrew Bible (thus each line of the title will have a separate verse number), so a note on verse numbering is necessary, where the verse number(s) for the title can be plainly shown. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JohnThorne: I'm not looking for that kind of compromise. I am looking at it from the classical Jewish viewpoint; to me, the KJV is not accurate and actually introduces alternative philosophy (see Psalm 2). You are probably coming at it from the Christian viewpoint, wondering what is the big deal about skipping a line of the Hebrew text. I say keep the KJV in each article, but also include the Hebrew with an English translation that is hopefully closer to the source. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: The rationale is that this Wikipedia entry should provide the Hebrew (original) text as a whole (with verse numbering just to make easier to refer to, or to annotate), then the English translation is presented "as is" (with verse numbering as found in that particular version). If there is discrepancy of verse numbering or textual variations (in Hebrew and/or in English) a subsection is added to clarify. This way the main psalm text in either languages will be clear. Now for Hebrew text, because it is in a table format, if there is a short note from ancient scribes or peculiar writings, a column can be added to the right of the text for that purpose. Otherwise, the explanation can be elaborated under "Uses" in the subsection of "Judaism". Can this be a compromise you seek? Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, now I see what you did in Psalm 76. I don't like it, because it adds the verse under the KJV translation. Most readers won't get that far. I am also uncomfortable with relying on the KJV as the English translation, as it is actually a translation of the Latin which is a translation of the Greek which is a translation of the Hebrew – three times removed. The JPS is more of a direct translation of the Hebrew. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just adding my 2c to this discussion which I was pointed to from one particular psalm article. The current state of the Psalm 119 is I think a good example of what shouldn't happen - we have an English article with a short lead, and then a long section solely in Hebrew (which 95%+ of this wiki's readers can't read) and then a one line link to a English translation off wiki. I understand that the removal of a copyrighted translation of the Hebrew has caused this issue, but it just seems crazy to leave it like that. I can see that there might be particular situations on occasion where having some of the Hebrew text might add something, but as a general rule I'm opposed to including it, particularly given as Jfhutson has pointed out WP:NPS and MOS:FOREIGN. Melcous (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I see your point, Melcous. You have identified the longest Psalm, with 176 verses! The rest of the psalms are much shorter; Psalm 117 has only 2 verses. So let's say we print just the English translation of the Hebrew, with a link to the Mechon Mamre Hebrew/English website. Then people will ask why we need 2 English translations (the one based on the Hebrew and the KJV)? That's why I suggested including the Hebrew with English translation in a separate chart. The Psalms are a Jewish original which has been adopted by Christians. If we just print the KJV translation, we are showing definite bias toward the Christian POV. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply Yoninah but maybe don't make assumptions that someone commenting on a topic is unaware of really basic things about it - it can be read as quite condescending. This is not about bias towards a Jewish or Christian POV, it is about "bias" towards English because this is an English encyclopaedia. Even the entire ;) text of Psalm 117 in Hebrew would serve what purpose exactly? I can't see why people would ask why we need 2 English translations - all translation involves interpretation, so having multiple translations is a great way of demonstrating that, in the language that the average reader of the encyclopaedia (who we are writing this for) can understand. Melcous (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Melcous: sorry, I didn't realize I was being condescending; I was just thinking things out. Yes, it makes sense to have only one translation, but the KJV is so different in text and numbering from the Hebrew Bible that I honestly don't see how that should be our choice, even if it is public domain. There is the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America bible, but then I'm sure Christian readers will wonder what happened to the KJV. I honestly don't know how to resolve this. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yep I would totally agree that the KJV on its own is not great (albeit slightly better than the Hebrew text on its own because at least it is in the language and script of the encyclopedia). I'd lean to either two English translations, or none but one or more linked to elsewhere, and then referred to as necessary within the article. The verse numbering issue does complicate things but perhaps that is the kind of information that could/should be included in the content of the article, especially when it makes significant differences? Melcous (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Melcous, history: the Hebrew was not meant to stand alone, it always came with a good translation, --- until copyright concerns came up, and all these translations disappeared per revdel. The new approach is to use a free 1917 translation instead. My pov concerns two thing, interpretation and verse numbering. Wikipedia goes for sources, and the Hebrew text is the original source, from which all others are derived. The 1917 translation is already an interpretation, as is the KJV, and pointing out differences and which is again interpretation. I believe that a neutral juxtaposition is best, and the passage can easily be skipped by a reader not interested. The verses are often numbered differently in the Hebrew and KJV, - we could give individual verses an id, to be able to link to individual verses within the text, instead of only the beginning. Example: Psalm 85#11 - which in the KJV is verse 10, s:Bible (King James)/Psalms#85:10. - Third point of view: I think the Hebrew looks lovely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda yes, as I said above I am aware of that history, but the current situation is that we have articles solely with the Hebrew. I personally agree with you that it looks lovely, and I can read it fine, but the vast majority of readers of this encyclopedia cannot and surely that is where we need to keep our focus. I wonder if sometimes those of who are particularly familiar with a topic (myself included) can lose sight of that big picture/aim and that is what I am trying to make sure is included in the discussion here. Melcous (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Melcous: As Gerda noted, the articles that only show Hebrew are a result of the revdel issue. That's why I revived this discussion on this page, so we could get down to streamlining all the Psalm pages and not leave them looking the way they do now. BTW Gerda and I are slowly expanding and improving the stubby Psalms pages too. Best, Yoninah (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- I gave this outdented discussion a header, because a translation of the Hebrew is exactly what may be wanted, and if yes, which. We try to get away from the current situation, and talk aout how. - I'd rather suggest to do without the KJV because that is - accessable verse by verse - in our source, than do without the Hebrew and its translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda yes, as I said above I am aware of that history, but the current situation is that we have articles solely with the Hebrew. I personally agree with you that it looks lovely, and I can read it fine, but the vast majority of readers of this encyclopedia cannot and surely that is where we need to keep our focus. I wonder if sometimes those of who are particularly familiar with a topic (myself included) can lose sight of that big picture/aim and that is what I am trying to make sure is included in the discussion here. Melcous (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Melcous, history: the Hebrew was not meant to stand alone, it always came with a good translation, --- until copyright concerns came up, and all these translations disappeared per revdel. The new approach is to use a free 1917 translation instead. My pov concerns two thing, interpretation and verse numbering. Wikipedia goes for sources, and the Hebrew text is the original source, from which all others are derived. The 1917 translation is already an interpretation, as is the KJV, and pointing out differences and which is again interpretation. I believe that a neutral juxtaposition is best, and the passage can easily be skipped by a reader not interested. The verses are often numbered differently in the Hebrew and KJV, - we could give individual verses an id, to be able to link to individual verses within the text, instead of only the beginning. Example: Psalm 85#11 - which in the KJV is verse 10, s:Bible (King James)/Psalms#85:10. - Third point of view: I think the Hebrew looks lovely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- "the KJV is so different in text and numbering from the Hebrew Bible that I honestly don't see how that should be our choice, even if it is public domain." The main article on the King James Version notes that it is not part of the public domain:
- "The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990." {{sfn|Metzger|Coogan|1993|p=618}} Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yep I would totally agree that the KJV on its own is not great (albeit slightly better than the Hebrew text on its own because at least it is in the language and script of the encyclopedia). I'd lean to either two English translations, or none but one or more linked to elsewhere, and then referred to as necessary within the article. The verse numbering issue does complicate things but perhaps that is the kind of information that could/should be included in the content of the article, especially when it makes significant differences? Melcous (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Melcous: sorry, I didn't realize I was being condescending; I was just thinking things out. Yes, it makes sense to have only one translation, but the KJV is so different in text and numbering from the Hebrew Bible that I honestly don't see how that should be our choice, even if it is public domain. There is the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America bible, but then I'm sure Christian readers will wonder what happened to the KJV. I honestly don't know how to resolve this. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply Yoninah but maybe don't make assumptions that someone commenting on a topic is unaware of really basic things about it - it can be read as quite condescending. This is not about bias towards a Jewish or Christian POV, it is about "bias" towards English because this is an English encyclopaedia. Even the entire ;) text of Psalm 117 in Hebrew would serve what purpose exactly? I can't see why people would ask why we need 2 English translations - all translation involves interpretation, so having multiple translations is a great way of demonstrating that, in the language that the average reader of the encyclopaedia (who we are writing this for) can understand. Melcous (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
nice!
amazing information, loved this page. i did a minor insert about psalms and if it is inappropriate kindly delete it. regardsUMAGPR (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Islam
I want to add the above link. @Elizium23: I hope to convince you that it is appropriate. Almost every Christian concept has a ===Islam=== subheading. Islam was strongly influenced by the Christian scripture that was incorporated into the Quran. Consequently The Book of Psalms (zabur in Arabic?) is mentioned in the Quran and that article referenced back to here. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It seems to be a tenuous link. The article is very vague about the connection, other than attribution to Holy King David. Have the passages been set to music and/or chanted at fixed times of the day during prayer? Elizium23 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I must admit I am trying to pull together how it fits in myself, Interesting questions, I will come back when I have the answers! JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Q38:28 David receives the Book of Psalms <ref>{{cite book |last1=Wherry |first1=Elwood Morris |author1-link=Elwood Morris Wherry |title=A Complete Index to [[Sale's Text]], Preliminary Discourse, and Notes |date=1896 |publisher=Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co |location=London}} {{PD-notice}}</ref>
- Psalms on Arabic Wikipedia
Psalm 9 & 10
Page claims these were originally an acrostic, but this seems dubious. Even more dubious is the claim that it is accepted by all.
I just confirmed 7 missing letters across the 9 and 10, and the majority of lines don't conform to the acrostic, and the ones that do, have a very inconsistent pattern. For psalm 9, two alephs, one beth, one gimel, missing daledh, one heh, four wows, one zion, one heth, one teth, one yodh, one kaph, over 21 lines. Only 14 in 21 lines conform and a letter missing. For psalm 10, one lamedh, missing mem, missing nun, missing sameh, missing ayin, missing peh, missing ssodhi, one quf, one resh, one shin, one taw, over 18 lines. Only 5 in 18 lines conform with 5 letters missing. Across 9 and 10, thats 19 in 39 lines conforming with 7 missing letters. Psalm 10 does not appear to be an acrostic as a stand alone, and Psalm 9 does not have a real identifiable pattern.
Book of Psalms
Hi, I've just thought: wouldn't it be better to move the current page's contents to Book of Psalms, 'cause there are many psalms and this article deals only with some of them (as is honestly stated in the preamble). 62.118.157.5 20:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Probably not. The Psalms are different from the book. However, to agree with one of the above authors, we really should have an article on the Divine Office. -- Penta 19:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Psalms in Islam
The Psalms, known as Zabur in Islam, are according to the book revealed by Allah the Holy Qur'an, one of the holy books revealed to humanity. To muslims, they are as important as the Torah and the Gospels. In Islam, it is considered that David is associated with the Psalms in the same way as Moses to the Torah, Jesus to the Gospels, or Muhammad to the Qur'an. Still according to the Qur'an, the Psalms are the holy book of the Sabians who are considered as of People of the book in the same way as Jews and Christians. icewizard 07:00, June 17, 2005 (GMT)
- I think you should wikify and add this text to the article. I would do it myself, but as a personal rule, I never add anything to an article that I don't know about on my own. Essjay · talk 08:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I put it here because I haven't done much research to densify the article. I didn't do much research in the Holy Qur'an to give a plain explanation and association between the Psalms and the Zabur. I understood it is true, but if I can, I will make a nice section for this in the article when I have enough references. By the way I found a new resource on the internet with the website http://www.al-kitab.org/zabur.html icewizard 02:36, June 18, 2005 (GMT)
Ashkenazi Transliteration
I've made a perfunctory effort to excise some of the transliteration yielding Ashenazi pronunciation ("Shabbos" changes to "Shabbat," "Shachris" to "Shachrit"). Probably a good idea throughout Wikipedia's Judaism-related pages, except where such pronunciation is appropriate (e.g., in reference to Yiddish or particularly Ashkenazi concepts). -- Light is Sown (12/13/05)
Chanting in Sarum style
Would the editors consider adding a link to the chanting of each psalm (English) in the Sarum Use? The links would be from this YouTube playlist. I have added a couple, but it was suggested that I revert and talk first. I will revert (it has been several years since I contributed to Wikipedia, and things have changed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugueman (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know. We ought to have a representative sample, given there are so many possible styles (Hebrew cantilation; the psalm tones of the Gregorian chant tradition [the Sarum Use doesn't sound too different from this, at least in overall musical effect - now I have the 9 usual psalm tones somewhere, don't know how different this is]; Anglican Chant; hymns in metrical paraphrase (to various degrees of textual liberty); free compositions [in even more various styles...]). @Gerda Arendt: Do we have an audio version somewhere of "Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen" (Brahms)? @El C: Do you know of sung versions of Ps 84 (in English "O how amiable are thy dwellings") in Hebrew? I mean, if we add the existing Anglican chant example, and if I take my (not so great) tenor voice to record it sung on the Gregorian tone, that could work as a great example, using the same text (if in different languages)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- How would making a list of the possibilities be, for one psalm? - Too many otherwise, no? The Brahms is in Ein deutsches Requiem, movement IV, but it's long, and I don't know how to make it work, - load first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- a good start (not complete) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- The audio from the Deutsches Requiem works without difficulty on my end. The code over there is
[[File:Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (04) Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen.ogg|noicon]]. I'll look up the hymns mentioned in the article (particularly the one by H.F. Lyte); though given the track record here it's likely that there won't be an article on it here, and probably also likely that only inclusion will be in old hymnals/psalters so sources (let alone audio) might be scarce. But I'll try. Currently for Ps 84 we have the Brahms (which is in the "free composition" category) and the Anglican chant (from the article). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)- @Gerda Arendt: Re. the hymn: Simple enough musically (as it should be); very popular previously at least that's what Julian (1907) and Hymnary confirm; covered by the modern publication too (where the fine couplet form is praised: "Pleasant are thy courts above, in the land of light and love / Pleasant are thy courts below, in this land of sin and woe). But nowadays seems to have faded into relative obscurity and it might not be known enough to be part of a representative sample... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Strike that, there's Lord of the worlds above (by watts) - not previously mentioned on the Psalm - which seems to be somewhat more frequent than the other alternative. Watts is particularly well known for another psalm paraphrase, O God, our help in ages past... Whether sticking to the "one psalm in different versions" theme is the best idea is a valid question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- The audio from the Deutsches Requiem works without difficulty on my end. The code over there is
- As for "what are the possibilites"; this (if we consider it a proper source) seems to have more than enough information to justify including something more than a simple listing in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here (Video had 13 views at the time I viewed it, which is a lucky number in Judaism.) El_C 03:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Quite a different, if I'd say "harsher", sound than even Gregorian psalm tones. Unlikely that such a thing would be found under compatible licensing, though (and well, even if I had a good voice, I certainly couldn't record that...). The Commons category doesn't have much else besides the Anglican chant already mentioned. We can do a composite then, of different psalms; if we insist on having some musical examples. The categorisation doesn't tell whether we have anything for that. An example of the well known Miserere (Ps 51) (with the chanted verses) might help complete a decent linguistic trifecta, if it can be found. Add one metrical paraphrase or another; and that leaves decent coverage. Just heavily slanted to Christianity, as one would tend to expect, unfortunately. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think about any of that (licensing, etc.) — just thought you wanted to hear what it sounded like... El_C 03:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it was, hum, a discovery, and my curiosity has been assuaged for the time being. Though really, if I haven't said it directly yet, from my end this was more of a reaction to the current state of Psalms#Psalms_set_to_music, which is basically just a list, and has no music not other encyclopedic content, despite the long and rich tradition of psalms being something set to music... Still brainstorming, if you want, as to how to best represent this (musical examples are optional, but highly recommended). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think about any of that (licensing, etc.) — just thought you wanted to hear what it sounded like... El_C 03:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Quite a different, if I'd say "harsher", sound than even Gregorian psalm tones. Unlikely that such a thing would be found under compatible licensing, though (and well, even if I had a good voice, I certainly couldn't record that...). The Commons category doesn't have much else besides the Anglican chant already mentioned. We can do a composite then, of different psalms; if we insist on having some musical examples. The categorisation doesn't tell whether we have anything for that. An example of the well known Miserere (Ps 51) (with the chanted verses) might help complete a decent linguistic trifecta, if it can be found. Add one metrical paraphrase or another; and that leaves decent coverage. Just heavily slanted to Christianity, as one would tend to expect, unfortunately. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Psalm s error
It's supposed to be 150, but there's 151 72.90.141.58 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-Judaic origin of Psalms
There are heaps of examples of the Psalms (as many as a third) originating from sources outside of Judaism (Akkadian, Egyptian, etc.), but no mention in the article. Would anyone care to add this? I'd rather not because the Psalms are not within my specialty, but if no one else wants to volunteer I can add it to my to-do list, but it will probably be months before I get to it. Plus I'm not sure how to present the source material succinctly, as I'm more used to writing exhaustive academic papers, and there are over 80 cross-referenced citations. Sadena (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Sadena: A good point. Note that "[some] Psalms originating from..." is probably not quite right. It's more something like "[some] Psalms adapt and change features from...". But that, too, is not ideal, as this influencing happens in different ways in different places. The commentary notes in Robert Alter's "The Hebrew Bible" translation mention such features and characteristics, and would be one of the reliable sources to use. I'll add it to my to-do list (but, like you, no promises!). Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still getting a hang of how to present academic evidence on Wikipedia without using primary sources, like saying "These passages of the Biblical Flood come from Tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh (Source: Tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh)." 😀 I'll figure it out eventually. Sadena (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Sadena: I've tried to make a start on this, at the new subsection "Influences" in the existing section "Composition". Feel free to adjust, expand, etc. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've considered selecting just one source to include. The Hymn of Lamentation to Ishtar is the single best source, as passages from it appear in a dozen different psalms. I'm sure I can dig up several journal articles or books to cite, as it's the best known borrowed source for the Psalms. Sadena (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why not a separate article on these examples? That might allow going into depth without pushback from zealots who don't want to admit that any such influence exists. Greg Lovern (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Poetic characteristics
This section only mentions parallelism, but there are others such as acrostic poems. Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)