Exegetical Issue—Katia

Introduction

The Hebrew text of Ps 19:3 reads:

אֵין־אֹמֶר וְאֵין דְּבָרִים בְּלִי נִשְׁמָע קוֹלָם

The syntax of v. 3b can be read either as an independent clause, i.e., "There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard" (NRSV; cf. NIV, NLT, CEV, GNT, NET, NEB/REB, NJB, NIV, NLT, NRT, UKR, etc.) or as a relative clause, i.e., "There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard" (ESV; cf. JPS 1985, RUSV, UBG, etc.)

Discussing vv. 2–3, Tanner et al., for example, observe, “Though the two verses have similar structure, they have dissimilar meaning. Verse 2 emphasizes that creation speaks a message about God and passes on knowledge of God; v. 3 denies that the message can be interpreted. Thus the similar structure of these two verses underscores their dissimilar theological message essentially by making the two verses 'like' and 'unlike' at the same time.”

Regarding the second reading, Delitzsch in turn explains, “The discourse of the heavens and the firmament, of the day (of the sky by day) and of the night (of the sky by night), is not a discourse uttered in a corner, it is a discourse in speech that is everywhere audible, and in words that are understood by all.”

Hence, according to the first reading (as an independent clause), v. 3b indicates that creation in Psalm 19 participates in the praise of God, but does so in its own inaudible manner. The second take on v. 3b (as a relative clause) signifies the opposite, i.e., the heavenly spheres are vocal in their worship of, and witness to, God, and their voices "broadcast" God's glory universally--everywhere and to everyone.

Notably, some scholars view v. 3b as a scribal correction introduced to the text at a later stage to tone down the radical assertion of v. 2: “There is no speech and there are no words, their voice is not heard.” If Ps 19:1–6 consists of two strophes, each of six tri-meters, then v. 3 reads as a prosaic insertion, which compromises the neat arrangement of vv. 1–6. As such, it should be deleted.

Argument Maps

Independent Clause

Verse 3b as an Independent Clause

Many modern translations prefer to render v. 3b as an independent clause (e.g., NRSV, NIV, NLT, CEV, GNT, NET, NEB/REB, NJB, HFA, NGÜ, GNB, EÜ, Luther 2017, ELB, ZÜR, TOB, NBS, NVSR, BDS, NFC, S21, RVR95, NVI, DHH, BTX4, NRT, UKR).

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Independent]: Verse 3b is an independent clause: "their voice is not heard." OR "There is no speech, and there are no words. Not being heard is their voice" (Knierim 1995, 322).
 + <The Use of בלי>: The particle of negation בלי is usually used in poetry (but see Gen 31:20, where it negates a finite verb and is used with a preposition; GK§ 152t, u; JM §160m; BHRG §41.6). Here it negates a participle (BDB, 115; “without being heard”; HALOT, 133; cf. Hos 7:8b: Ephraim has become a cake not turned/אפרים היה עגה בלי הפוכה; cf. 2 Sam 1:21). 
 + <The Use of בלי in Psalm 19>: In Ps 19:3, בלי can be understood to substitute for אין, which usually negates participles, and to reflect/echo אין in v. 3a; this reading would make vv. 3a and 3b semantically parallel (Sommer 2015, 391–392).
  -<Grammar>: The reading as a relative/subordinate clause is also legitimate (Sommer 2015, 391–392).#dispreferred
 + <Broader Context Within Psalm 19/End of the Psalm>: (As with the Relative Clause view) if vv. 2–4 presuppose communication in the heavenly spheres, that is  somehow discernible and indiscernible, then they are mirrored by v. 15, which deals with two modes of human communication (“the words of mouth” and “the meditation of my heart”). The word הגיון/“meditation” can represent something inarticulate (e.g., a murmuring sound; HALOT, 237–238; BDB, 211–212). Since the language from vv. 2–3 (“words/speech” x3) appears in v. 15 (“the words of my mouth”), the correlation/comparison between the two section is legitimate, i.e., both the non-human creation and the psalmist, a human subject, are engaged in two modes of communication, articulate and inarticulate.
 + <Broader Context Within Psalm 19/The Beginning of The Psalm>: Also, reflecting vv. 3–4 (audible and non-audible modes of communication), v. 2 speaks of communication in the heavenly spheres taking place daily and at night, presupposing that is discernible (to some subjects) only half the time.
 + <Literary Strategy>: Ps 19:1–6 utilizes a form of synaesthesia, an intentional confusion of the sense, i.e., it mentions “speech”, yet its communication should be perceived and processed not through hearing, but with eyes, through vision. Cf. Exod 19:18 (MT), where the Israelites “saw” the voice of God on Sinai (Burnside 2019, 187; yet, he translates v. 3 as a relative clause, ibid., 185; cf. Klouda 2000; Coetzee 2009, etc.). In Psalm 19, the combination of “wordless speech” (vv. 1–6) and “speechless words” (vv. 7–10) reduces the difference between the heavenly witness and the Torah (Burnside 2019, 186).
 - <A Gloss to Be Deleted>: Based on the specificity of its metre, v. 3 could have been part of another poem and placed first in the margin of Psalm 19, and then transposed into the main text (Baethgen 1892, npn). Cf. Ps 19:1–6 has two strophes each of six tri-meters, so v. 3 compromises this arrangement and should be taken out. V. 3 could be a scribal gloss to help “unenlightened” readers understand v. 3a (Briggs and Briggs 1907, 165, cf. 162; cf. Wellhausen, Duhm, etc.).#dispreferred
 - <Ancient Witnesses>: The majority of VSS do not support this reading (e.g., LXX, σ′, α′, Vulg).#dispreferred
 - <Grammar>: If v. 3 indicates no audible speech in the heavens, then for v. 4 to make sense, it needs to begin with a “but” (Delitzsch; cf. Ps 139:4.#dispreferred 
 - <Context>: A.) The “inaudible” mode of communication seems to contradict (and needs to be reconciled with) v. 4, which utilizes (potentially) two terms related to the audible form of communication. B.) It goes against HB’s broader witness regarding communication and agency of the non-human creation (e.g., Joerstad 2019, 157–195).#dispreferred 
 - <Interpretative Strategies A>: Modern translations and discussions favoring this reading seem to be motivated by the interest in natural revelation and its inferiority to special revelation (i.e., in the Torah, and later in the person of Christ; cf. Barth 1936–77). This may not have been on the agenda of ancient scribes.#dispreferred
 - <Interpretative Strategies B>: Those who think the heavenly spheres cannot engage in audible communication as it is irrational (and read v. 3b as an independent clause), do not apply this argument consistently, i.e., they do not see problematic the image of the Sun journeying across the sky as a hero or the Torah being sweet as honey, etc.#dispreferred 

Relative Clause

Verse 3b as a Relative Clause; a preferred reading

The majority of ancient witnesses (e.g., LXX, Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion,and Jerome), however, as well as several modern translations (e.g., ESV, JPS 1985, RUSV, UBG), read v. 3b as a relative clause.

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Relative]: V. 3b is a relative clause: "There is no speech, there are no words, whose sound is not heard."
 + <Grammar 1>: V. 3b could be subordinate to v. 3a, presupposing אשר at the beginning—i.e., “there is no speech, there are no words, whose sound is not heard” (cf. Ehrlich: “In the second part of the verse, as is often the case in poetry, the reference to the logical subject is omitted. LXX also seems to have understood the words that way.” Ehrlich 1905, 38).
 + <Grammar 2>: The relative pronoun אשר (along with the DA and DOM) does not appear often in HB poetry (Andersen and Forbes, 1983; Holmstedt 2016). Among typical features of the syntax of HB poetry, asyndetic relative clauses are “one of the most striking features” (Sappan 1981, 162).
 + <Grammar 3>: בלי can serve as a preposition, i.e., “without”, and be followed by a noun or a participle (HALOT, 133; BDB, 115). If before נשמע, the particle בלי functions as a preposition and v. 3b is subordinate to v. 3a, then v. 3b can be viewed as a “parallelism of specification” (Sommer 2015, 391–392). The heavens do produce audible sounds (Ibid., 392; cf. Ehrlich 1905, 38; Kittel 1914, etc.).
 + <Ancient Versions>: The majority of the VSS support this reading (LXX, σ′, α′, Vulg). Some VSS (LXX, σ′) also read קום in v. 4 as “their sound”, indicating that creation’s communication is audible.
 + <Cultural Differences 1>: The ancients had a different “cognitive landscape” in which they operated (Walton 2007, 2008); in their cognitive and cultural context, the heavenly spheres were vocal (cf. Pss 50:6; 65:9 [8]; 65:13–14 [12–13]; 93:3; 148:1–5; Job 38:7; Sira 43:1). Cf. the difference in ancient and modern views on the material composition of רקיע/expanse: in the cosmologies of HB, Second Temple literature, rabbinics, and patristics, the expanse is solid (Seely 1991, 1992). 
 + <Immediate Context 1>: The immediate context suggests that the heavenly spheres are vocal and audible. Vv. 1–4 abound in “speech” words (e.g., “recount”, “declare”, “pour forth speech”, “speech”, transmittable "knowledge”, “words”, and possibly “sound” [cf. LXX, σ′; cf. Luther and Calvin; Keil and Delitzsch 1971, npn; Tanner et al. 2014, npn; Sommer 2015, 392, etc.).
 + <Immediate Context 2>: In v. 4b, the heavens’ “words” go into all the corners of the earth and all the world (the former can signify both the whole earth and the underworld; BDB, 76; HALOT, 90–91; the latter can represent the inhabited part of the mainland; can be used as a parallel to “dry land”; HALOT, 1682). If no audibility and/or “understandability” is presupposed in v. 3, then this thoroughgoing communication becomes non-sensical.
  - <Counterargument 1>: “To be heard” does not mean “to be understood”. Plus, the Psalter and HB/NT showcase diversity in nonhuman communication (Fretheim 1987, 2005; Strawn and LeMon 2007; Coad 2009; Bauckham 2011; Kilcrease 2012; Joerstad 2019; Atkins 2020).#dispreferred
  - <Counterargument 2>: The issue of audibility/discernibility and understandability should not dictate our interpretative strategy for v. 3, since Psalm 19 legitimizes both discernible and indiscernible modes of communication (cf. v. 15, which speaks of human communication, i.e., “the words of my mouth”/articulate and “the meditation of my heart”/may be audible; but linked to “heart”, it is inarticulate and inaudible). Note that the language from vv. 2–3 (“words/speech” x3) appears in v. 15 (“the words of my mouth”); so the comparison between the two section is legitimate, i.e., both the non-human creation and human subjects are engaged in two modes of communication, articulate and inarticulate.#dispreferred
 + <Cultural Differences 2>: Modern translations and secondary literature hesitate to read v. 3b as a subordinate clause, assuming perhaps that for it to make sense the heavenly communication should be heard and understood. Comparative evidence suggests that in ancient literature nonhuman agents could converse and be heard but not understood by human subjects (KTU 1.1 iii 13–15,  Wyatt 44–45, 2002). Same can be said of Ps 19:3 (Van Zyl 1966, 146–147). Taking an anthropocentric approach to an ancient poetic text on creation is not the best interpretive strategy (cf. Joerstad 2019, 158–171). 
  - <Question>: In whose/what speech and in whose/what words then is their sound heard#dispreferred
 + <Interpretive Strategies>: Biblical scholarship is moving away from the dominant anthropocentric approach to HB texts; the focus is being shifted towards the natural world (e.g., Fretheim, 2005; Strawn and LeMon 2007; Bauckham 2011; Strawn 2012; Stone 2017; Joerstad 2019; Kavusa 2019; Atkins 2020).
 + <The Psalm's Theme and Strategy>: If the heavenly spheres offer no information/knowledge to humanity, or that it is not understandable, then the opening statements of Psalm 19 are “ironic”. The text’s overall tone and thrust call for creation’s audible communication (“it is unlikely that the poet devotes the impressive language of the first six lines to a tale devoid of sound, signifying nothing.” Sommer 2015, 393).
 + <The Psalm's Theme>: The overall theme of Psalm 19 (i.e., communication) suggests the reading of v. 3b as a subordinate clause: the Torah communicates (vv. 7–10) and so does creation (cf. Joerstad 2019, 159; although she does not argue for an audible communication).
 + <HB's Broader Context>: The broader biblical context suggests the heavens are vocal and/or audible. In HB, “the activity of nature tends to mirror the themes of specific biblical books” (Joerstad 2019, 159). E.g., in Joshua and Judges, it engages in warfare/battles; in Prophets, it griefs; in Psalms, it praises. 
 - <A Gloss To Be Deleted>: Based on the specificity of its meter, v. 3 could have been part of another poem and placed here first in the margin, and then transposed into the main text (Baethgen 1892, npn). Cf. Ps 19:1–6 has two strophes each of six tri-meters; v. 3 compromises this arrangement and should be taken out (Briggs and Briggs 1907, 165, cf. 162).#dispreferred
 - <Grammar Refuting Point>: The reading as an independent clause is also legitimate (Sommer 2015, 391–392).#dispreferred

Conclusion

Given the above schematization, the second reading of v. 3b (i.e., “There is no speech, nor are there words, whose [or in which their/the heavenly spheres’] voice is not heard”) should be preferred. This reading can be accepted 1.) on grammatical grounds; 2.) in view of the strong support of the ancient witnesses; and 3.) due to the verse’s immediate and wider (intra- and inter-textual) context/evidence. Thus, as part of a poetic text, v. 3b could serve as an unmarked, asyndetic relative clause, which coheres well with the overall tendency and/or conventions of biblical poetry. The versions, too, support this reading (although it is possible that they could have worked from a different Vorlage[n]). Further, this “relative” take on v. 3, which makes the celestial spheres particularly vocal, is more faithful to the overall theme of Psalm 19 (i.e., communication)—within this composition, the cosmic speech (vv. 1–6) is as important as the communication of the Torah (vv. 7–10), and is as worshipful as the communication of humanity (v. 14). Such understanding of the cosmos correlates with the presentation of the nonhuman creation within the book of Psalms and within the Hebrew Bible, wherein the world is a sentient and articulate entity.

Hence, in the Hebrew Bible as a whole and in the Psalter in particular, the world “speaks and feels joy… Its words are not human words, and its joy is the kind of joy appropriate to mountains, billows, and fields. Provided humans are not the measure of all things, these words and this joy are real. In the Psalter the world is not mute; it is sonorous, humming with voices.” In Psalm 19, the celestial spheres and other nonhuman and nonanimal subjects, “are speaking among themselves, telling each other about God: ‘Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.’ This is consistent with other psalms that narrate the discursive abilities of nonhuman creatures. Sometimes they speak to each other, as in Psalm 42:8 [7] ('deep calls out to deep'), often they turn to God, as in Psalm 145:10 ('all your works praise you'), and, most common of all, they rejoice together in YHWH, as in Psalms 65:9 [8], 13–14 [12–13]; 89:13 [12]; 93:3; and 98:7. In none of these examples are humans the primary recipients of nature’s communication. Instead, humans overhear an interchange between YHWH and various parts of the world. At most, humans sometimes participate in this interchange by adding their own praise. Humans are a secondary audience to nature’s adoration of YHWH, not its raison d’être.”

Notwithstanding this, the suggestion that v. 3 is a later gloss (and as such should be omitted) remains attractive. Upon deletion, the resultant text exhibits a tighter and neater arrangement of its clauses, which does not compromise the text's overall aesthetics and theology:

הַשָּׁמַיִם מְסַפְּרִים כְּבוֹד־אֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו מַגִּיד הָרָקִיעַ

יוֹם לְיוֹם יַבִּיעַ אֹמֶר וְלַיְלָה לְּלַיְלָה יְחַוֶּה־דָּעַת

בְּכָל־הָאָרֶץ יָצָא קַוָּם וּבִקְצֵה תֵבֵל מִלֵּיהֶם

"The heavens are telling the glory of El,

His handiwork the firmament is declaring;

Day poureth forth speech unto day,

Night maketh known knowledge onto night;

In all the earth their voice is gone out,

And in the bounds of the world are their words."

Research

Translations

Ancient

• LXX: οὐκ εἰσὶν λαλιαὶ οὐδὲ λόγοι ὧν οὐχὶ ἀκούονται αἱ φωναὶ αὐτῶν.
  • “There are no conversations, nor are there words, the articulations of which are not heard.” (NETS)
• Aquila: οὐκ ἔστι λόγος καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ῥήματα οὗ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ.
• Symmachus: οὐ ῥήσεσιν οὐδὲ λόγοις, ὧν οὐκ ἀκούονται αἱ φωναί.
• Theodotion: οὐκ εἰσὶ λαλιαὶ οὐδὲ λόγοι ὧν οὐχὶ ἀκούονται αἱ φωναὶ αὐτῶν.
• Peshitta: ܠܝܬ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܐܦ ܠܐ ܡ̈ܠܐ܂ ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܡܥ ܒܩܠܗܘܢ܂
  • “There is no speech or words, for their voice is not heard.
• Targum: לית מימר דתורעמתא ולית מילי דשגושא דלא משתמע קלהון
  • "There is no word of commotion, nor are there words of confusion and their voice is not heard."
• Jerome: non est sermo et non sunt verba quibus non audiatur vox eorum.
  • "There is no speech and there are no words by which their voice is not heard."

Modern

v. 3b as an independent clause

• There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard. (NET)
• They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. (NIV)
• They don’t speak a word, and there is never the sound of a voice. (CEV)
• No speech or words are used, no sound is heard. (GNT)
• They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. (NLT)
• There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. (NRSV)
• No utterance at all, no speech, not a sound to be heard. (NJB)
• and this without speech or language or sound of any voice. (NEB/REB)
• … ohne Sprache und ohne Worte; unhörbar ist ihre Stimme. (Luther 2017)
• Dies alles geschieht ohne Worte, ohne einen vernehmlichen Laut. (HFA)
• Sie tun es ohne Worte, kein Laut und keine Stimme ist zu hören. (NGÜ)
• … ohne Rede und ohne Worte, mit unhörbarer Stimme. (ELB)
• … ohne Rede und ohne Worte, ungehört bleibt ihre Stimme. (EÜ)
• Kein Wort wird gesprochen, kein Laut ist zu hören. (GNB)
• … ohne Sprache, ohne Worte, mit unhörbarer Stimme. (ZÜR)
• Ce n'est pas un récit, il n'y a pas de mots, leur voix ne s'entend pas. (TOB)
• Ce n'est pas un langage, ce ne sont pas des paroles, on n'entend pas leur voix. (NBS)
• Ce n'est pas un langage, ce ne sont pas des paroles, Leur voix n'est pas entendue. (NVSR)
• Ce ne sont pas des paroles, ce ne sont pas des discours, ni des voix qu’on peut entendre. (BDS)
• Ce n’est pas un discours, il n’y a pas de paroles, aucun son ne se fait entendre. (PDV)
• Ce n’est pas un discours, ce ne sont pas des mots, l’oreille n’entend aucun son. (NFC)
• Ce n’est pas un langage, ce ne sont pas des paroles, on n’entend pas leur son. (S21)
• No hay lenguaje ni palabras ni es oída su voz. (RVR95)
• Sin palabras, sin lenguaje, sin una voz perceptible, ... (NVI)
• Aunque no se escuchan palabras ni se oye voz alguna, ... (DHH)
• Donde no hay lenguaje ni idioma, La voz de Ellos no es para ser oída, ... (BTX4)
• Хотя они не используют ни речи, ни слов, и от них не слышно ни звука, ... (NRT)
• ... без мови й без слів, не чутний їхній голос, ... (UKR)

v. 3b as a relative clause

• There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. (ESV)
• There is no utterance, there are no words, whose sound goes unheard. (JPS 1985).
• Нет языка, и нет наречия, где не слышался бы голос их. (RUSV)
• Nie ma języka ani mowy, w których nie słychać ich głosu. (UBG)

Secondary Literature

• Alter, Robert. 2007. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Amos Ḥakham, 2003. The Bible: Psalms with the Jerusalem Commentary, ed. Israel V. Berman, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook.
• Andersen, F.I., and A.D. Forbes. 1983. “Prose Particle Counts of the Hebrew Bible,” in C. Meyers and M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns and American Schools for Oriental Research. 165–83.
• Barr, James. 1993. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures for 1991, Delivered in the University of Edinburgh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Barth, Karl. 1936–1977. Church Dogmatics. Trans. by G.T. Thomson et al.; 14 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Vol. 2.1.
• Bauckham, Richard. 2011. “Joining Creation’s Praise.” in Living with Other Creatures: Green Exegesis and Theology. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 147–162.
• Briggs, Charles A. and Briggs, Emilie G. 1907. Psalms: Volume 1: 1–50. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T& T Clark.
• Brown, William B. 2002. Seeing the Psalms. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Bullock, C. Hassell. 2015. Psalms: Volume 1. Teach the Text Commentary Series. Baker Publishing Group.
• Burnside, Jonathan P. 2019. “Natural Law and Biblical Law.” In Research Handbook on Natural Law Theory. eds. Jonathan Crowe and Youngwon Lee. Edward Elgar Publishing. 181–203.
• Coad, Dominic. 2009. “Creation’s Praise of God: A Proposal for a Theology of the Non-Human Creation.” Theology 112: 181–189.
• Coetzee, Johan H. 2009. “Listen to the Silent Voice of the Heavens and Taste the Sweetness of Torah: Reading Psalm 19 from a ‘Body phenomenological’ and an ‘Embodied understanding’ Perspective.” OTE 22: 281–301.
• Cooley, Jeffrey L. 2014. “Psalm 19: A Sabbath Song.” Vetus Testamentum 64: 177–95.
• Cooper, Alan. 1994. “Creation, Philosophy and Spirituality: Aspects of Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 19,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. ed. John Reeves and John Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 15–33.
• Coote, Robert B. 2006. “Psalm 19: Heavenly Law and Order.” in From Biblical Interpretation to Human Transformation: Reopening the Past to Actualize New Possibilities for the Future. A Festschrift for Herman C. Waetjen. ed. Douglas R. McGaughey and Cornelia Cyss Crocker. Salem, MA: Chora Strangers.
• Craigie, Peter C., and Marvin E. Tate. 2004. Psalms 1–50. Word Biblical Commentary 19. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
• DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. 2014. The Book of Psalms. New International Commentary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Delitzsh, Franz. 2006. Psalms. Commentary on the Old Testament 5. trans. Francis Bolton. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
• Eaton, J.H. 1995. Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators. JSOTSup 199; Sheffiled: Sheffield Aacdemic Press.
• Ehrlich, Arnold B. 1905. Psalmen. Neu uebersetzt und erklaert. Berlin: Poppelauer.
• Fretheim, Terence E. 1987. “Nature’s Praise of God in the Psalms.” Ex Auditu 3: 16–30.
• Fretheim, Terence E. 2005. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• Goldingay, John. 2006. Psalms. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Press.
• Gruber, Mayer I., trans., 2004. Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms. Leiden: Brill.
• Gunkel, Hermann. 1926. Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und Erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoef & Ruprecht.
• Holmstedt, Robert D. 2016. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. LSAWS 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
• Jorstad, Mari. 2019. “An Articulate World: Personalistic Nature Texts in the Writings,” in The Hebrew Bible and Environmental Ethics: Humans, NonHumans, and the Living Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 157–195.
• Kavusa, K.J. 2019. Water and Water-Related Phenomena in the Old Testament Wisdom Literature: An Eco-Theological Exploration. LHBOTS, 685; London/New York: T&T Clark.
• Kilcrease, Jack D. 2012. “Creation’s Praise: A Short Liturgical Reading of Genesis 1-2 and the book of Revelation.” Pro Ecclesia 21: 314–325.
• Klouda, Sheri L. 2000. “The Dialectical Interplay of Seeing and Hearing in Psalm 19 and Its Connection to Wisdom.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 10: 181–195.
• Knierim, Rolf P. 1995. The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
• Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1972. Psalmen 1–63. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XV/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
• Loader, James A. 2011. “What Do the Heavens Declare? On the Old Testament Motif of God’s Beauty in Creation,” HTS Theologiese Studies 67: 1–8.
• Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Jacobus A. Naudé. 2015. “The Participle and Negation in Biblical Hebrew.” KUSATU 19: 165–199.
• Ross, Allen P. 2011. A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume I (1–41). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic.
• Sommer, Benjamin. 2015. “Nature, Revelation, and Grace in Psalm 19: Towards a Theological Reading of Scripture.” HTR 108: 376–401.
• Stone, K. 2017. Reading the Hebrew Bible with Animal Studies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Strawn Brent A., and Joel M. LeMon. 2007. “‘Everything That Has Breath’: Animal Praise in Psalm 150:6 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Iconography.” in Bilder als Quellen/Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel. eds. S. Bickel, S. Schroer, R. Schurte, and C. Uchlinger. OBO Sonderband; Fribourg: Academic Press. 451–485.
• Strawn, Brent. 2012. A. “On Vomiting: Leviticus, Jonah, Ea(a)rth.” CBQ 74: 445–64.
• Strickman, H. Normann, trans, 2009. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the First Book of Psalms: Chapters 1–41. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press.
• Van Zyl, A.H. 1966. “Psalm 19.” Neotestamentica 1: 142–158.
• VanGemeren, Willem. 2008. Psalms. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary; revised edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Vos, C.J.A. 2004. “Theopoetical and Liturgical Patterns of the Psalms with Reference to Psalm 19.” in Psalms and Liturgy. ed. D.J. Human and C.J.A. Vos. JSOTSup 410; London/New York: JSOT, 251–289.
• Wagner, J.R. 1999. “From the Heavens to the Heart: The Dynamics of Psalm 19 as Prayer.” CBQ 61: 245–261.
• Walton, John H. 2008. “Creation in Genesis 1: 1–2: 3 and the Ancient Near East.” Calvin Theological Journal 43: 48–63.
• Walton, John. 20007. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Nottingham: Apollos.
• Weber, Beat. 2012. “Toward a Theory of the Poetry of the Hebrew Bible: The Poetry of the Psalms as a Test Case.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 22: 157–188.
• Weiser, Artur. 1962. The Psalms. Old Testament Library. Trans. by Herbert Hartwell. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.