Understanding the psalms: textual fluidity

Genoa psalter of 1516, edited by Agostino Giustiniani, bishop of Nebbio

In the previous part of this set of introductory notes on tackling the psalms, I pointed to the need to keep in mind that each psalm connects to others, and that both its position in Scripture and in the Office are deliberate choices that are likely to have some meaning.

Today I want to conclude this set of preliminary notes by looking at some of the issues around the various versions of the texts of the psalms themselves.

In my first post in this set, I suggested focusing first on getting the words of the psalm right.  But today I want to provide a bit of a counterpoint to that, as I want to suggest that when you are studying the psalms rather than actually singing or saying them as part of the Office, you shouldn't get too hung up on the exact words of the text, whatever language you encounter the psalms in.

When it comes to Scripture, I want to suggest, an undue focus on the exact words can sometimes lead us astray, because there is often more than one, at least equally valid, 'text tradition' to draw upon.

Critical editions, Hebrew Scripture and competing text traditions

We are used, in our time, to the idea that there is one correct, authoritative version of a text; indeed academia devotes a great deal of effort to the preparation of 'critical editions' of early texts as the first step before translations can be made.

In the context of Scripture, that has long translated into an assumption that since the Old Testament was originally composed in Hebrew, the Hebrew base texts that we have represent a more authentic version of it than the Septuagint Greek for example.

In reality, however, the oldest manuscripts of  the Hebrew 'Masoretic Text' (MT), the only version of the Hebrew known until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates from the tenth century.

In contrast, the Septuagint Greek, an officially commissioned translation started around three centuries before Christ, and which the Fathers regarded as a divinely inspired providential gift from God, is preserved in very early manuscripts indeed.

And it turns out that in fact these two rather different versions of the Old Testament genuinely represent two different text traditions both preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Why you should use the Vulgate!

I've written elsewhere on some of the reasons why Catholics should use the (Gallican) Vulgate (and ignore the Neo-Vulgate!), and focus on the Septuagint text tradition over the Hebrew Maseoretic Text, so I won't dig into that much further here.

I would urge though, Benedictines in particular to use the Vulgate, and translations based on it, as you will miss many of the echoes of the Rule if you don't.  

There are quite a few key words that St Benedict uses in various key contexts (such as the Suscipe, the verse used in the profession ceremony) that occur in several places in the Vulgate, but are not used in St Jerome's from the Hebrew or the Neo-Vulgate, and are not directly reflected in translations based on the Hebrew, as opposed to the Septuagint.

Text variations and commentaries

Despite all this though, in my notes I generally do provide a selection of Latin and English translations of each verse, and I wanted to explain briefly why I do that, and what to take out of it!

Patristic commentaries

And the first reason is simple: the Patristic commentators did not necessarily start from or stick to the version of the text that they sung in the Office when commenting on a psalm verse.

Instead, commentators such as St Augustine, St John Chrysostom and St Cassiodorus often mention different versions of the text, and sometimes provide alternative interpretations of verses based on them.

In other cases, they use versions of the text, such as St Jerome's from the Hebrew, as a tool to understand some of the more cryptic passages of the Vulgate (or Septuagint).

Text variants, in other words, are another input to interpreting verses at multiple levels, rather than just focusing on the literal.

Alternative versions of the Latin in the liturgy

The second reason is not unrelated to this: when you come across psalms in the liturgy, the version you encounter will not always be the Vulgate.  

The invitatory psalm 94, for example, is still sung each day at Matins using a 'Vetus Latin' text. 

And many responsories and antiphons use either the 'Romanum' or Vetus texts.

The problem with translations

 The third reason though, is that no matter what version of the Latin text you are using, you are working from a translation of a translation.  

No one translation, no matter how authoritative, can fully capture all of the possibilities and nuances of the original.

So having a couple of alternatives in front of you can sometimes add a bit of useful 'colour', and I'd encourage you to take a close look at them, and try and at least take note of the key the differences.

The translations

The versions of the text I sometimes or always include are as follows:

• Vulgate (V)  - the (Gallican) liturgical Latin;
• the neo-Vulgate (NV) - the current official version of the Latin used in Novus Ordo liturgy;
• the Romanum (R) - the version of the psalter used at Rome up (and elsewhere) until the tenth century (and beyond in some very limited cases);
• the Pian (P) - another failed twentieth century translation of curiosity value;
• St Jerome's translation 'from the Hebrew'; and
• the Septuagint.

I don't generally try to include the Vetus Latin (VL), since it isn't really one fixed text, but rather a collective term for several variants, but there are books and online tools to find the main ones if you are interested.

Secondly, since I'm mainly interested in the Latin tradition, that is, how the psalms have been received by the Church, and St Jerome aside, that didn't really include reference to the Hebrew until around the time of the Renaissance (and Reformation), I generally ignore the Hebrew unless I think it is particularly important or illuminating.  

Moreover, there are plenty of modern commentaries and online tools that focus almost exclusively on the Hebrew, so I see little point in duplicating that work.  For a light introduction, for example, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is a useful starting point, while online sources such as Blue Letter Bible will provide the Hebrew and links to Strong's wonderful concordance on it.  

I also try and include several English translations so you can try and get a feel for the range of possibilities.

It is worth keeping in mind though, that these basically fall into two camps, those based on the Hebrew MT, and those based on the Septuagint-Vulgate tradition.

Those in the Septuagint-Vulgate camp are:

DR: Douay-Rheims (- Challoner)

Brenton: Brenton's translation from the Septuagint

Those mainly based on the MT include:

MD: Monastic Diurnal (early twentieth century Collegeville translation)

RSV: Revised Standard Version

Cover: Coverdale

Knox: Knox translation

Grail: Grail (earlier version)

Please do ask if you come across an abbreviation that you can't decode!

Understanding the psalms: Scriptural Psalm titles

Dead sea scrolls Psalms: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr1.html

Continuing my Lent series on the psalms, I want to focus today on the 'psalm titles' included in Scripture.

Note that I am not talking here about the psalm titles developed in late antiquity and the early medieval periods - these are certainly of interest and can be quite helpful, but they are not Scriptural.

Should we take the psalm titles seriously?

Most modern commentators reject the idea that the titles of the psalms have any particular significance, seeing them instead as rather prosaic performance notes, or alternatively (a)historical claims for their context.

In my overviews of each psalm, though, I typically set out and comment on the titles ascribed to psalms in Scripture.

That's because the Fathers took them very seriously indeed, considering them to be part of inspired, canonical Scripture and often providing extended commentary on both their literal and spiritual meanings.

St Augustine, for example, in his commentary on Psalm 105, urged his audience to be conscious of the psalm titles, and the canonical order of the psalms, in trying to understand them:

confessing that we both believe the mysteries of all the titles in the Psalms, and of the order of the same Psalms, to be important, and that we have not yet been able, as we wish, to penetrate them.

By contrast, many, if not most, modern commentaries either ignore the titles altogether; take issue with their content (on ascriptions of authorship for example), or at best consider them only at the literal level.

So are the psalm titles part of Scripture or not?

Titles as canonical Scripture 

In fact the evidence strongly suggests that the psalm titles were part of the original text of the Psalter: they are found in both the Septuagint, the earliest Hebrew Masoretic Text manuscripts (dating from the tenth century), and in the Dead Sea Scroll versions of the psalms. 

The Scriptural titles were not typically written in smaller print, as most modern Bibles make them, but were either treated as the same level of text as the liturgical first line of the psalm, or sometimes centred above it.

We need to distinguish here, though, between the psalm titles included in the oldest surviving Hebrew and Greek versions of the psalms, and the various sets of medieval, non-canonical psalm titles that served as aids to interpretation.

The titles preserved in Scripture should be treated as part of canonical Scripture; the various medieval psalm titles series are of interest in the same way that Patristic and later commentaries are, but are not binding on us in any way.

Psalm titles on authorship, the ordering of the psalter and historical context

The Scriptural psalm titles, though, in my opinion at least, are well worth paying attention to.

At the literal level, many of the psalm titles ascribe the authorship of psalms to certain authors, such as David (79), or Moses. The Old Pontifical Bible Commission ruled that these ascriptions of authorship were not in fact open to debate.  Some doubt whether those rulings are still binding, but they have certainly never been explicitly overruled, and in the absence of hard factual evidence to contradict them, should surely be regarded at least as highly persuasive.  

Others specify the day of the week on which the psalm is to be said, presumably in the context of ancient temple liturgies.  The reasons for the particular ascriptions are often fairly obscure, perhaps connected to the days of creation, but whether by chance or otherwise, some of these specifications are also followed in the Benedictine psalter: Psalm 23, assigned to the first day of the week is said at Sunday Matins; Psalm 80 on Thursdays (in the Masoretic Text version) at Matins; and Psalm 92 on Friday at Matins.  A great many more have titles that the Fathers interpreted as referring to Sunday, as the day of the Resurrection: Psalm 6's title, for example, 'Unto the end...for the octave' is a good example.

Perhaps the most helpful titles are those that link the psalm to historical events, usually in the life of David.  Psalm 141, for example, is titled, ' Of understanding for David. A prayer for when he was in the cave', thus linking it to the story told in 1 Kings 24.

Psalm titles as a cue to canonical interpretation

But the most interesting takes on the psalm titles are, in my view, the spiritual interpretations provided by the Fathers: indeed St Gregory of Nyssa composed an entire treatise devoted to the titles of the psalms, and how they point us to the overall storyline of the psalter.

References to 'a psalm of David', for example, can be interpreted both a claim as to authorship, but also as pointing to its Christological content, since David is a 'type' of Christ.

In some cases the reasons for this interpretation are particularly obvious: the last psalm of Friday Vespers, for example, Psalm 144, has the title Laudatio ipsi David, or Praise, for David himself, and then opens with the verse:

Exaltábo te, Deus meus, rex: * et benedícam nómini tuo in sæculum, et in sæculum sæculi.

I will extol you, O God my king: and I will bless your name for ever; yea, forever and ever.

These spiritual meanings are, I think, often quite important for us to consider if we wish to understand the way the psalms are used liturgically, since they can sometimes help explain why a particular psalm was allocated to a particular day of the week or hour.