The Verbal Semantics of Psalm 9:4

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to Psalm 9

Introduction[ ]

The traditional Hebrew text (MT, Leningrad Codex) of Ps. 9:4 reads as follows:

בְּשׁוּב־אוֹיְבַ֥י אָח֑וֹר יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ מִפָּנֶֽיךָ׃

The semantics of the two “yiqtol” verbs in 4b are not clear. The variety among both modern and ancient translations reflects this problem:

  • Some take the verbs as referring to the future, 'they will stumble...they will perish'
    • E.g., 'When my enemies turn back, they will stumble and perish because of your presence' (LEB, cf. LXX Aquila, Targum, BDS).
  • A few translations reflect an analysis of the two verbs as continuing the semantics of the infinitive שׁוּב, presumably placing these events after those in v. 3, viz., 'I will praise when my enemies turn back, stumble and perish...'
    • E.g., ܟܕ ܢܗܦ݂ܟܘܢ ܒ̈ܥܠܕܒܒܝ ܠܒܣܬܪܗܘܢ. ܘܢܬܬܩܠܘܢ ܘܢܐܒܕܘܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܡܝܟ. 'when my enemies turn back and stumble and perish from before you' (Peshitta, cf. Jerome, Symmachus).
  • Some place both verbs (even, at times, the infinitive) in the past
    • E.g., 'NLT: My enemies retreated; they staggered and died when you appeared' (NLT; cf. RVR95, PDT, NTV, SCH2000).
  • Some reflect an analysis of both verbs (even, at times, the infinitive) as some sort of present, whether actual or generic.
    • E.g., ' When my enemies turn back, they stumble and perish before your presence' (ESV; cf. BCC1923, LSG, PDV 2017, NVI, LBLA, NGU2011, HFA, NIV, NET, NASB1995, KJV, HCSB, CEB, ASV, JPS).[1].
  • Others reflect the equivalent of the English present perfect
    • daß du meine Feinde hinter sich getrieben hast; sie sind gefallen und umgekommen vor dir (DELUT)

Argument Map(s)[ ]

Past[ ]


===
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
=== 
[Past]: The yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ refer to what what took place before the praise(so, e.g., RVR95, PDT, NTV, SCH2000, NLT). #dispreferred
 + <Causal Infinitive>: The preposition ב + infinitive can function as an explanatory clause, in which case v. 4 does give the basis for praise (cf. Ross 2011, 305 :C:). #dispreferred
   <_ <The כי in v. 5>: Verse 5 explicitly grounds what brought on the praise with כי and, as expected, uses past-tense forms. Verse 4 has neither a כי nor past-tense form, and therefore cannot be identified as part of the formal grounds for praise ('Aber die Konjunktion »denn« steht erst in 5,'; Hossfeld and Zenger 1993, 85 :C:).
    + <Rest of the Psalm in the Past>: ‘The rest of the psalm will rather recall Yhwh's great acts in the people's history, and this will also be true of subsequent statements about Yhwh's acts (9:12, 15–16; 10:16)' (Goldingay 2006, 171 :C:). The grounds for praise therefore does not begin at v. 4.
   - <Opposite Constructions>: It's unlikely that the formal grounds of praise would take two opposite constructions: 'If this were a testimony psalm, one might then expect an account of God's deliverance from trouble in response to prayer...A "because" clause with qatal verbs, the kind of clause one might have expected, does then follow in v. 4 (=Heb. v. 5)' (Goldingay 2006,  171 :C:). 
 - <Syntax of Past-Tense Yiqtol>: Yiqtol can refer to past tense only when a past-tense time reference has been established (e.g., 2 King 13:14; see Van der Merwe 161 :G:), which is not the case in vv. 1–3.


Argument Mapn0PastThe yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ refer to what what took place before the praise(so, e.g., RVR95, PDT, NTV, SCH2000, NLT). n1Causal InfinitiveThe preposition ב + infinitive can function as an explanatory clause, in which case v. 4 does give the basis for praise (cf. Ross 2011, 305 🄲). n1->n0n2The כי in v. 5Verse 5 explicitly grounds what brought on the praise with כי and, as expected, uses past-tense forms. Verse 4 has neither a כי nor past-tense form, and therefore cannot be identified as part of the formal grounds for praise ('Aber die Konjunktion »denn« steht erst in 5,'; Hossfeld and Zenger 1993, 85 🄲).n2->n1n3Rest of the Psalm in the Past‘The rest of the psalm will rather recall Yhwh's great acts in the people's history, and this will also be true of subsequent statements about Yhwh's acts (9:12, 15–16; 10:16)' (Goldingay 2006, 171 🄲). The grounds for praise therefore does not begin at v. 4.n3->n2n4Opposite ConstructionsIt's unlikely that the formal grounds of praise would take two opposite constructions: 'If this were a testimony psalm, one might then expect an account of God's deliverance from trouble in response to prayer...A "because" clause with qatal verbs, the kind of clause one might have expected, does then follow in v. 4 (=Heb. v. 5)' (Goldingay 2006, 171 🄲). n4->n1n5Syntax of Past-Tense YiqtolYiqtol can refer to past tense only when a past-tense time reference has been established (e.g., 2 King 13:14; see Van der Merwe 161 🄶), which is not the case in vv. 1–3.n5->n0


Actual Present (Progressive Imperfect)[ ]


===
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
=== 

[Actual Present]: The yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ refer to what is actually happening at the time of speech and should therefore be translated as present progressives 'they are stumbling', 'they (are) perish(ing)'(see esp. NGU2011).#dispreferred
 + <Basis of Praise>: The psalmist is giving the reason the enemies have turned back. 'The clause of verse three...provides the basis for the praise. The enemies are turned back...The reason is that they stumble and Perish at the presence of the Lord (Ross 2011, 305 :C:).#dispreferred
  - <Opposite Constructions>: It's unlikely that the formal grounds of praise would take two opposite constructions: 'If this were a testimony psalm, one might then expect an account of God's deliverance from trouble in response to prayer...A "because" clause with qatal verbs, the kind of clause one might have expected, does then follow in v. 4' (Goldingay 2006,  171 :C:). 
 + <Morphology>: 'Here these are impff., to be taken in the sense of presents' (Delitzssch 1883, 207 :A:).#dispreferred
  <_ <Yiqtol Morphology>: 'Nongeneralizing progressive yiqtol-L is rare in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs more or less sparingly in wh-questions (15a), relative clauses (b), causal clauses (d), and with verbs denoting perceptions (d), ability (e), and knowledge' (Bergström 2022, 108 :M:). 'Outside questions it is unlikely to be durative' (JK §113d :G:).


Argument Mapn0Actual PresentThe yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ refer to what is actually happening at the time of speech and should therefore be translated as present progressives 'they are stumbling', 'they (are) perish(ing)'(see esp. NGU2011).n1Basis of PraiseThe psalmist is giving the reason the enemies have turned back. 'The clause of verse three...provides the basis for the praise. The enemies are turned back...The reason is that they stumble and Perish at the presence of the Lord (Ross 2011, 305 🄲).n1->n0n2Opposite ConstructionsIt's unlikely that the formal grounds of praise would take two opposite constructions: 'If this were a testimony psalm, one might then expect an account of God's deliverance from trouble in response to prayer...A "because" clause with qatal verbs, the kind of clause one might have expected, does then follow in v. 4' (Goldingay 2006, 171 🄲). n2->n1n3Morphology'Here these are impff., to be taken in the sense of presents' (Delitzssch 1883, 207 🄰).n3->n0n4Yiqtol Morphology'Nongeneralizing progressive yiqtol-L is rare in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs more or less sparingly in wh-questions (15a), relative clauses (b), causal clauses (d), and with verbs denoting perceptions (d), ability (e), and knowledge' (Bergström 2022, 108 🄼). 'Outside questions it is unlikely to be durative' (JK §113d 🄶). n4->n3


Generic Present (Simple Present Tense)[ ]


===
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
=== 
[Generic Present]: The yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ refer to what God normally does and should be translated as simple present-tense ('they fall and perish' (as they have always done); so BCC1923, LSG, PDV 2017, NVI, LBLA, HFA, NIV, NET, NASB1995, KJV, HCSB, ESV, CEB, ASV, JPS). #dispreferred
 + <Fitting Basis for Praise>: 'The verbs, fall and put to flight, in the Hebrew, are in the future tense, but I have translated them in the present, because David anew presents to his own view the goodness of God which had formerly been manifested towards him' (Calvin :C:). #dispreferred
  - <Opposite Constructions>: It's unlikely that the formal grounds of praise would take two opposite constructions: 'If this were a testimony psalm, one might then expect an account of God's deliverance from trouble in response to prayer...A "because" clause with qatal verbs, the kind of clause one might have expected, does then follow in v. 4' (Goldingay 2006,  171 :C:).


Argument Mapn0Generic PresentThe yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ refer to what God normally does and should be translated as simple present-tense ('they fall and perish' (as they have always done); so BCC1923, LSG, PDV 2017, NVI, LBLA, HFA, NIV, NET, NASB1995, KJV, HCSB, ESV, CEB, ASV, JPS). n1Fitting Basis for Praise'The verbs, fall and put to flight, in the Hebrew, are in the future tense, but I have translated them in the present, because David anew presents to his own view the goodness of God which had formerly been manifested towards him' (Calvin 🄲). n1->n0n2Opposite ConstructionsIt's unlikely that the formal grounds of praise would take two opposite constructions: 'If this were a testimony psalm, one might then expect an account of God's deliverance from trouble in response to prayer...A "because" clause with qatal verbs, the kind of clause one might have expected, does then follow in v. 4' (Goldingay 2006, 171 🄲). n2->n1


Future[ ]


===
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
=== 
[Future]: The yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ  and the infinitive clause (בשוב) are located in the futures and should be translated as such 'they will stumble' and 'they will perish' (cf. LXX, Aquila, Targum, BDS, LEB).
 + <Verbal Morphology>: The yiqtols are most naturally taken as futures. #dispreferred
 - <Unlikely Conditional>: A future-tense analysis forces a conditional reading, 'when/if they turn back, they WILL stumble...'; but this does not make any sense because this reading draws a causal connection (turning back causes stumbling, falling) that is does not necessarily have to be the case (Hupfeld 1888, 132 :C:)
 - <Vv. 5–6>: The past-tense forms in vv. 5–6 make it seem like the justice—which, in this case, is the stumbling and perishing of the enemies—has already been done, and so the option of future-tense is 'excluded' ( 'ausgeschlossen'; Hupfeld 1888, 132 :C:). 
  <_ <The Meaning of משפט>: The phrase עש''ה משפט refers not to the execution of a verdict (in this case the stumbling and perishing) but the confirmation of an already existing right. 'Used in this sense, mishpat stands for the rightful claim of the innocent party' (TDOT 9:91 :L:). #dispreferred
    + 1 K. 8:45,49,59 2 Ch. 6:35,39; Ps. 9:5[4]; l4O:13[12]; 146:7; Mic. 7:9 #dispreferred
 + <Psalm 10>: Because of the lament in Psalm 10, 'the suppliant is not in a position to give testimony but is in need of Yhwh's acting.' Vv. 3–4 thus refer to 'what the suppliant expects Yhwh to do...; v. 4 (=MT v. 5) looks back from the perspective of that future event' (Goldingay 2006, 171 :C:). #dispreferred
  <_ <Psalm 9 & 10>: Whether or not Psalm 9 & 10 were originally one Psalm is debated.


Argument Mapn0FutureThe yiqtols יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ  and the infinitive clause (בשוב) are located in the futures and should be translated as such 'they will stumble' and 'they will perish' (cf. LXX, Aquila, Targum, BDS, LEB).n11 K. 8:45,49,59 2 Ch. 6:35,39; Ps. 9:5n5The Meaning of משפטThe phrase עש''ה משפט refers not to the execution of a verdict (in this case the stumbling and perishing) but the confirmation of an already existing right. 'Used in this sense, mishpat stands for the rightful claim of the innocent party' (TDOT 9:91 🄻). n1->n5n2Verbal MorphologyThe yiqtols are most naturally taken as futures. n2->n0n3Unlikely ConditionalA future-tense analysis forces a conditional reading, 'when/if they turn back, they WILL stumble...'; but this does not make any sense because this reading draws a causal connection (turning back causes stumbling, falling) that is does not necessarily have to be the case (Hupfeld 1888, 132 🄲)n3->n0n4Vv. 5–6The past-tense forms in vv. 5–6 make it seem like the justice—which, in this case, is the stumbling and perishing of the enemies—has already been done, and so the option of future-tense is 'excluded' ( 'ausgeschlossen'; Hupfeld 1888, 132 🄲). n4->n0n5->n4n6Psalm 10Because of the lament in Psalm 10, 'the suppliant is not in a position to give testimony but is in need of Yhwh's acting.' Vv. 3–4 thus refer to 'what the suppliant expects Yhwh to do...; v. 4 (=MT v. 5) looks back from the perspective of that future event' (Goldingay 2006, 171 🄲). n6->n0n7Psalm 9 & 10Whether or not Psalm 9 & 10 were originally one Psalm is debated.n7->n6


Continuation of Infinitive[ ]


===
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
=== 
[Continuation of the infinitive]: Some construe the verbs as continuing the semantics of the infinitive (viz., 'when my enemies turn, stumble and perish...'  so Jerome, Symmachus, Peshitta; so Delitzsch 1883 :C:; Duhm 1899 :C:; Baethgen 1905 :C:; Kirkpatrick 1897 :C:; Alonso-Schöckel 1992 :C:).
 + <Grammatically Permissible>: 'Rem. 1. The constructions of the infinitive with a preposition, described above under d, are almost always continued in the further course of the narrative by means of the finite verb, i. e. by an independent sentence, not by a co-ordinate infinitive' (GKC §114r :G:).
  + Gn 39:10, 1 S 24:12, Am 1:9; Gn 27:45, Ju 6:18, 1 S 10:8, 2 K 18:32; Isa 10:2, 13:9, 14:25, 45:1, 49:5, 1 S 2:8, Pr 2:8, 5:2, 8:21
  <_ <Lack of Waw>: When an infinitive is continued by ''yiqtol'' the first yiqtol is always preceded by waw. #dispreferred
   + Eccl 12:4; Prov 1:27; Isa 30:26; 5:24; 10:2; 13:9; 14:25; 45:1; 49:5; 1 Sam 2:8; Prov 2:8; 5:2; 8:21. #dispreferred
   <_ <Line Breaks>: None of the line divisions in the Psalm have a waw intervening between them.
 + <כי>: The following כי grounds the epistemic stance (viz., how psalmist knows all this will happen to his enemies) not the speech-act (Locatell 2017, 279 :D:).
 + <Subordination>: The בשוב is already subordinate to what precedes; it cannot be subordinate to two things.
  <_ <Verse 5 כי Subordinate to 4b>: The epistemic כי in v. 5 could ground יכשלו and יאבדו if they are read as future indicatives, in which case v. 4a is only subordinate to v. 4b. #dispreferred
   <_ <Unlikely Conditional>: Subordinating v. 4a to v. 4b would require a conditional reading, 'when/if they turn back, they WILL stumble...'; but this does not make any sense because this reading draws a causal connection (turning back causes stumbling, falling) that is does not necessarily have to be the case (Hupfeld 1888, 132 :C:)


Argument Mapn0Continuation of the infinitiveSome construe the verbs as continuing the semantics of the infinitive (viz., 'when my enemies turn, stumble and perish...'  so Jerome, Symmachus, Peshitta; so Delitzsch 1883 🄲; Duhm 1899 🄲; Baethgen 1905 🄲; Kirkpatrick 1897 🄲; Alonso-Schöckel 1992 🄲).n1Gn 39:10, 1 S 24:12, Am 1:9; Gn 27:45, Ju 6:18, 1 S 10:8, 2 K 18:32; Isa 10:2, 13:9, 14:25, 45:1, 49:5, 1 S 2:8, Pr 2:8, 5:2, 8:21n3Grammatically Permissible'Rem. 1. The constructions of the infinitive with a preposition, described above under d, are almost always continued in the further course of the narrative by means of the finite verb, i. e. by an independent sentence, not by a co-ordinate infinitive' (GKC §114r 🄶).n1->n3n2Eccl 12:4; Prov 1:27; Isa 30:26; 5:24; 10:2; 13:9; 14:25; 45:1; 49:5; 1 Sam 2:8; Prov 2:8; 5:2; 8:21. n4Lack of WawWhen an infinitive is continued by ''yiqtol'' the first yiqtol is always preceded by waw. n2->n4n3->n0n4->n3n5Line BreaksNone of the line divisions in the Psalm have a waw intervening between them.n5->n4n6כיThe following כי grounds the epistemic stance (viz., how psalmist knows all this will happen to his enemies) not the speech-act (Locatell 2017, 279 🄳).n6->n0n7SubordinationThe בשוב is already subordinate to what precedes; it cannot be subordinate to two things.n7->n0n8Verse 5 כי Subordinate to 4bThe epistemic כי in v. 5 could ground יכשלו and יאבדו if they are read as future indicatives, in which case v. 4a is only subordinate to v. 4b. n8->n7n9Unlikely ConditionalSubordinating v. 4a to v. 4b would require a conditional reading, 'when/if they turn back, they WILL stumble...'; but this does not make any sense because this reading draws a causal connection (turning back causes stumbling, falling) that is does not necessarily have to be the case (Hupfeld 1888, 132 🄲)n9->n8


Jussive[ ]

Although not reflected in any translations, it is possible to read the verbs as jussive[2] 


===
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
===
[Jussive]: The yiqtols are being used as jussives 'when my enemies turn back, may they stumble and fall...' #dispreferred
 - <No Acknowledgement>: This interpretation is not reflected in a single translation, ancient or modern. Nor is it acknowledged by a single modern commentator.


Argument Mapn0JussiveThe yiqtols are being used as jussives 'when my enemies turn back, may they stumble and fall...' n1No AcknowledgementThis interpretation is not reflected in a single translation, ancient or modern. Nor is it acknowledged by a single modern commentator.n1->n0


Conclusion[ ]

It is important to keep in mind that the yiqtol verbs יִכָּשְׁל֥וּ and וְ֝יֹאבְד֗וּ cannot form a sort of apodosis with the infinitive (viz., 'if/when my enemies turn back, they stumble...') because this would not make much sense. There's no reason why one necessarily must stumble and perish 'when' or 'if' one turns/is turned backwards[3].

This analysis suggests that the phrase בשוב is dependent on the verbs in vv. 1–3. Biblical Hebrew continues infinitives with finite verbs, as is the case here. The form chosen for continuation—yiqtol—is difficult to reconcile with a present or past-tense reference, especially because the yiqtols and the verbs in vv. 1–3 are all future-oriented. As was the case in Psalm 6:11, the psalmist is 'sure that his enemies must retreat and perish' (Hossfeld and Zenger 1993, 86). In vv. 1–3 the Psalmist therefore looks forward to these acts with certainty. A jussive interpretation of the verbs is tempting, but there is not any indication in the history of interpretation that these verbs are jussive. The fact that a waw is missing before the first verb is difficult, but this is probably due to poetic reasons; none of the line breaks in the psalm have waw intervening. When this is accounted for, then a finite verb continues the infinitive, as expected in Hebrew grammar. Finally, the כי in v. 5 is grounding the epistemic stance of the Psalmist in vv. 1–4. He knows that he will praise the Lord when his enemies are destroyed, why? Because The Lord has maintained his rights. Construing the verbs as jussive obscures this grounding.

We have therefore chosen to translate Psalm 9:4 as follows: 3b...I will praise your name, most high God, 4when my enemies turn back, stumble and perish from before (or because of) you.

Research[ ]

Translations[ ]

Ancient[ ]

  • LXX: ἐν τῷ ἀποστραφῆναι τὸν ἐχθρόν μου εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω ἀσθενήσουσιν καὶ ἀπολοῦνται ἀπὸ προσώπου σου 'when my enemy turns back, rearwards, they shall grow weak and shall perish from before you' (NETS).
  • Aquila: For LXX ἀσθενήσουσιν 'they shall grow weak', Aquilla has προσκόψουσι 'they will stumble', retroverted from Syro-hexapla ܢܬܟܫܠܘܢ 'they will stumble(?)'.
  • Symmachus: ἀναστραφέντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ προσκοψάντων καὶ ἀπολομένων ἐκ προσώπου σου 'When my were turned back, rearwards, stumbled and died from before you'.
  • Jerome: cum ceciderint inimici mei retrorsum et corruerint et perierint a facie tua '...when my enemies have turned away from me, and fallen and perished from before you'.
  • Peshitta: ܟܕ ܢܗܦ݂ܟܘܢ ܒ̈ܥܠܕܒܒܝ ܠܒܣܬܪܗܘܢ. ܘܢܬܬܩܠܘܢ ܘܢܐܒܕܘܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܡܝܟ. 'when my enemies turn back and stumble and perish from before you'.
  • Targum: בִּדְיְתוּב בְּעֵל דְבָבֵי לַאֲחוֹרָא יִתְקְלוּן וִיהוֹבְדוּן מִן קֳדָמָךְ 'when my enemies turn back, they will stumble and perish from before you'.

Modern[ ]

English[ ]

  • NLT: My enemies retreated; they staggered and died when you appeared.
  • NIV: My enemies turn back; they stumble and perish before you.
  • NET: When my enemies turn back, they trip and are defeated before you[4].
  • NASB1995: When my enemies turn back, they stumble and perish before You.
  • LEB: When my enemies turn back, they will stumble and perish because of your presence.
  • KJV: When mine enemies are turned back, They shall fall and perish at thy presence.
  • HCSB: When my enemies retreat, they stumble and perish before You.
  • ESV: When my enemies turn back, they stumble and perish before your presence.
  • CEB: When my enemies turn and retreat, they fall down and die right in front of you.
  • ASV: When mine enemies turn back, They stumble and perish at thy presence.
  • JPS: When my enemies retreat, they stumble to their doom at Your presence.

German[ ]

  • SCH2000: Als meine Feinde zurückwichen, da strauchelten sie und kamen um vor deinem Angesicht.
  • NGU2011: Denn jetzt treten meine Feinde den Rückzug an, dein zorniger Blick wirft sie zu Boden und lässt sie umkommen.
  • HFA: Denn du schlägst meine Feinde in die Flucht, sie stürzen und kommen um!
  • DELUT: daß du meine Feinde hinter sich getrieben hast; sie sind gefallen und umgekommen vor dir.

French[ ]

  • PDV2017: Mes ennemis font demi-tour, ils perdent l’équilibre et ils meurent devant toi.
  • LSG: Mes ennemis reculent, Ils chancellent, ils périssent devant ta face.
  • BDS: Mes ennemis prennent la fuite, sous tes coups, ils vont trébucher ; ils vont périr devant ta face.
  • BCC1923: Mes ennemis reculent, ils trébuchent et tombent devant ta face.

Spanish[ ]

  • RVR95: Mis enemigos se volvieron atrás; cayeron y perecieron delante de ti.
  • PDT: Gracias a ti mis enemigos salieron huyendo, cayeron y desaparecieron.
  • NVI: Mis enemigos retroceden; tropiezan y perecen ante ti.
  • NTV: Mis enemigos retrocedieron, tambalearon y murieron cuando apareciste.
  • LBLA: Cuando mis enemigos retroceden tropiezan y perecen delante de ti.


References[ ]

9:4

Approved

  1. ↑ Cf. NET's comment: 'The imperfect verbal forms in this line either emphasize what typically happens or describe vividly the aftermath of a recent battle in which the LORD defeated the psalmist’s enemies'
  2. ↑ So Nicacci (1999, 131): '...there are other yiqtols, e.g., 9:4, 9 which may or should be translated with a future or which may be jusstivef'.
  3. ↑ So Hupfeld (1888, 132), 'Bei jener Auffassung: indem zurückwei chen meine Feinde rücklings, strauchel n sie etc. ist nicht nur der Mangel jedes Anzeichens des Nachsatzes bedenklich , auch der so gewonnene Gedanke des Hauptsatzes ist neben dem Zeitsatz ein ziemlich nichtssagender. Cf. Baethgan 1904, 23.
  4. ↑ Or “perish”; or “die.” The imperfect verbal forms in this line either emphasize what typically happens or describe vividly the aftermath of a recent battle in which the LORD defeated the psalmist’s enemies
Retrieved from "https://psalms.scriptura.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Verbal_Semantics_of_Psalm_9:4&oldid=32984"