Ps 8:3 (MT): Because of the wailing?

[Sebastian Walter]

Michael: So you see the same problem as me. Thanks, that was helpful.

Within the last few days I juggled with verses containing פֶּה, but there is definitely not more evidence for פֶּה="wailing" than Job 7:11 which itself is quite small evidence, so I think this isn´t tenable.
Because of this, I decided to try it once again by phrasing it differently:

[...]
None of this makes a lot of sense. For this reason, I want to propose cautiously the following alternative interpretation: The preposition מִנ doesn´t refer only to the source/origin of something, but also to it´s reason/occasion ("min causae"). And פֶּה means not only "mouth", but does refer also to individuals as speaking persons, and even more frequently to acts of speech and even more abstract to "sound". => God acts as he does in 8:3 because of some utterance of the children.
Because of this, already Smend 1888 interpreted the expression מִפִּי as referring to "prayers" (p. 55f.); cf. also Siegmund/Stade, p. 568 (פֶּה="prayers") and recently Schnieringer 2004, p. 148 ("Um des Schreiens der Kinder willen" [for the sake of the children´s crying]).
I therefore propose the translation "Because of the wailing of sucklings and nursing babes you built a bulwark."

If you´d come across this interpretation - would you think it tenable?

Sebastian

[kwrandolph]

Sebastian:

I learned from this question as well. I found the question intriguing, therefore did research to find out how it could be interpreted.

I looked up all the occurrences of עז and realized that there are some cases where it refers to an utterance, and in context an utterance of praise or something like that. Before you asked this question, I didn’t know that. Other times the same spelling refers to a goat, a noun and adjective referring to strength, and a few times for a refuge, but nowhere that I found to “bulwark”.

I looked up all the occurrences of מפה and found that some refer to “from here” as in “from here to there”, other times “from a mouth”. I also looked up the construct version מפי and every case found that the prefixed מ is used in the sense of “from” even though in other cases the prefixed מ is used in the sense of “because of”, just never in this context. Sometimes it is used in the sense of withholding food from the mouth, and every time it’s used in the sense of giving an utterance, the utterance is described in the context.

Taking the two together, I now get “From the mouth of little children and suckling babes you set up praise.”

Thanks for the question, it’s been a learning experience for me.

I therefore propose the translation "Because of the wailing of sucklings and nursing babes you built a bulwark."
If you´d come across this interpretation - would you think it tenable?

After doing the research to answer your question, I now say “No”.

Now go ahead and do your own research on this if you want to, see if you found something that I missed. Unless you do find something different, please don’t go foolish on us to insist that עז must refer to “bulwark” without more evidence.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Sebastian Walter]

I´m really sorry if this is starting to get annoying. It´s just, I found this interpretation and now have to evaluate whether it is tenable or not. Yesterday I learned that this is also the interpretation of Schnieringer, who wrote one of the most important books on Ps 8 in the last few years, which makes this question even more important. Wouldn´t have thought that it needed that much discussion...

edit: Karl: I didn't know the expression "to go foolish on sb.", so I asked an American friend of mine. He translated it as "Stop acting dim-witted", so I took it as an offense (maybe he played a prank on me). Now I learned that it means "to overdo something", "to become obsessed with something", so the post below may be a bit harsh a reaction as regards its tone. I'm sorry for that; it was a misunderstanding./edit

Karl:
Well... fine. Firstly: עֹז. If you insist, let´s talk about עֹז. When we look at the dictionaries (I know that you don´t look at translations and that you don´t trust dictionaries, so I did that for you) we find the meaning "stronghold, fortress, bulwark" for:

1. Ex 15:2 (König)
2. Ps 8:3 (DCH; Ges18; KBL3; Siegmund/Stade)
3. Ps 30:8 (Siegmund/Stade)
4. Ps 46:2 (Siegmund/Stade)
5. Ps 59:10.18 (Siegmund/Stade)
6. Ps 118:14 (König)
7. Pr 21:22 (Ges 18; KBL3; Siegmund/Stade)
8. Is 12:2 (König)
9. Jer 16:19 (Siegmund/Stade)
10. Jer 51,53 (DCH)
11. Am 3:11 (DCH; Ges18; KBL3; König; Siegmund/Stade)

It probably isn´t the most probable meaning in most of these cases (Personally, I´d regard as promising verses (besides Ps 8:3) Ps 59:10.18 (|| מִשְׂגַּב); Pr 21:22 (|| עִיר גִּבֹּרִים); Jer 16:19 (יְהוָה עֻזִּי וּמָעֻזִּי וּמְנוּסִי); Am 3:11 (|| אַרמוֹן).), but nevertheless, in my view it´s the case that you have to prove that עֹז can´t mean "stronghold, fortress, bulwark"; not the other way round.

Secondly:

I looked up all the occurrences of מפה and found that some refer to “from here” as in “from here to there”, other times “from a mouth”. I also looked up the construct version מפי and every case found that the prefixed מ is used in the sense of “from” even though in other cases the prefixed מ is used in the sense of “because of”, just never in this context.

So what? The min causae does exist; you admit that yourself. What else do you need?
And it isn´t even true. "מִפִּי PN" has the meaning

• "according to the word of PN" (or frequently also simply "verbatim") in Jer 23:16; Jer 36:4.6.27.32; Jer 45:1; Ezra 1:1; 2Chr 35:22; 2Chr 36:12.
• In Job 36:16; Ps 22:22; Am 3:12 it means "from (not: "out of"; cf. Am 3:12) the jaws of X".
• In Est 7:8; Is 45:23; Is 55:11; Klg 3:38 we are dealing with an idiom: מִפִּי + דָּבָר + יָצָא; in Ez 3:17; Ez 33:7; Zec 8:9 we are dealing with it´s counterpart (מִפִּי + דָּבָר + שָׁמַע), so you surely don´t want to cite this as evidence.

=> The only verse remaining is Ps 119:43.

But if you really need a direct parallel I could offer Dtn 31:21:
וְעָנְתָה הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לְפָנָיו לְעֵד כִּי לֹא תִשָּׁכַח מִפִּי זַרְעוֹ
I googled for "forgotten out of the mouth". Dtn 31:21 or quotations of Dtn 31:21 are the only results. This is not very surprising, for it isn´t a very meaningful expression - "to be forgotten out of the mouth of X".
But the sense of the verse isn´t that difficult: It starts with "This song shall testify against them as a witness, FOR...", and then follows the reason: "it shall not be forgotten." This is specified by מִפִּי זַרְעוֹ: "It shall not be forgotten" + מנ+ "mouth of their seed". Obviously, the "mouth of their seed" doesn´t refer to the place from where it shall not be forgotten, but to the reason: It shall not be forgotten because they´ll still be singing it (cf. "because their descendants will still be reciting it" (CJB); "But this song will still be sung" (GNT); "Thir children won´t forget this song; they´ll be singing it" (MSG); "Sie werden es immer noch singen" ("They´ll still be singing it") (GN) and so on.). So Dtn 31:21 means "because of the mouths of their descendants" (again, פֶּה refers to an act of speech), or more natural: "because of their descendant´s singing".

Apart from that I´m not sure what you want to prove. The translation "From the mouth of little children and suckling babes you set up praise." does exist quite often and it is possible that there is an עֹז="praise". I already admitted that, so I don´t know what you are defending or why you are that zeroed in on עֹז. Plus, I know already that you like your interpretation better than the one presented above, but contrasting an interpretation A with an interpretation B is never a good way for disproving interpretation A, so I don´t know why you still go on about it...

So, again, I´m really sorry if this is starting to get annoying. Nevertheless, any help in evaluating would be appreciated,

Sebastian

[kwrandolph]

Sebastian:

I´m really sorry if this is starting to get annoying. It´s just, I found this interpretation and now have to evaluate whether it is tenable or not. Yesterday I learned that this is also the interpretation of Schnieringer, who wrote one of the most important books on Ps 8 in the last few years, which makes this question even more important. Wouldn´t have thought that it needed that much discussion...

Karl:
Well... fine. Firstly: עֹז. If you insist, let´s talk about עֹז. When we look at the dictionaries (I know that you don´t look at translations and that you don´t trust dictionaries, so I did that for you) we find the meaning "stronghold, fortress, bulwark" for:

1. Ex 15:2 (König)

“Praise” accompanied by instrumental music is a better translation here.

[*] Ps 8:3 (DCH; Ges18; KBL3; Siegmund/Stade)

This is the verse in question.

[*] Ps 30:8 (Siegmund/Stade)

“Mighty” i.e. strong, this is an adjective, not a noun.

[*] Ps 46:2 (Siegmund/Stade)

“Refuge”

[*] Ps 59:10.18 (Siegmund/Stade)

“Praise”, this is something that is sung. Did you look up these words in Hebrew in their contexts?

[*] Ps 118:14 (König)

Same as Exodus 15:2

[*] Pr 21:22 (Ges 18; KBL3; Siegmund/Stade)

“Refuge”

[*] Is 12:2 (König)

Same as Exodus 15:2

[*] Jer 16:19 (Siegmund/Stade)

“Strength”

[*] Jer 51,53 (DCH)

“Refuge”

[*] Am 3:11 (DCH; Ges18; KBL3; König; Siegmund/Stade)

“Refuge” This one is somewhat metaphorical, as it refers to a people, not just a city.[/list]

The names in the parentheses mean nothing to me. I don’t know who they are and what they represent. That’s why I call for you to make your arguments from the Hebrew itself, not from what others say.

Did you read those verses and their contexts in Hebrew before listing them? Especially the Amos example, you need to start reading at the first verse of the chapter to get the context.

It probably isn´t the most probable meaning in most of these cases (Personally, I´d regard as promising verses (besides Ps 8:3) Ps 59:10.18 (|| מִשְׂגַּב); Pr 21:22 (|| עִיר גִּבֹּרִים); Jer 16:19 (יְהוָה עֻזִּי וּמָעֻזִּי וּמְנוּסִי); Am 3:11 (|| אַרמוֹן).), but nevertheless, in my view it´s the case that you have to prove that עֹז can´t mean "stronghold, fortress, bulwark"; not the other way round.

Be careful, you’re talking yourself into a corner. There are plenty of times that עז refers to things besides ‘bulwark’ and where it is other than a noun. You need to look at contexts to see which meaning fits each use. Lisowski lists over two columns where it refers to ‘strength’ or ‘refuge’, with the context indicating which use to translate.

Secondly:

I looked up all the occurrences of מפה and found that some refer to “from here” as in “from here to there”, other times “from a mouth”. I also looked up the construct version מפי and every case found that the prefixed מ is used in the sense of “from” even though in other cases the prefixed מ is used in the sense of “because of”, just never in this context.

So what? The min causae does exist; you admit that yourself. What else do you need?

Context.

And it isn´t even true. "מִפִּי PN" has the meaning

• "according to the word of PN" (or frequently also simply "verbatim") in Jer 23:16; Jer 36:4.6.27.32; Jer 45:1; Ezra 1:1; 2Chr 35:22; 2Chr 36:12.
• In Job 36:16; Ps 22:22; Am 3:12 it means "from (not: "out of"; cf. Am 3:12) the jaws of X".
• In Est 7:8; Is 45:23; Is 55:11; Klg 3:38 we are dealing with an idiom: מִפִּי + דָּבָר + יָצָא; in Ez 3:17; Ez 33:7; Zec 8:9 we are dealing with it´s counterpart (מִפִּי + דָּבָר + שָׁמַע), so you surely don´t want to cite this as evidence.

=> The only verse remaining is Ps 119:43.

But if you really need a direct parallel I could offer Dtn 31:21:
וְעָנְתָה הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לְפָנָיו לְעֵד כִּי לֹא תִשָּׁכַח מִפִּי זַרְעוֹ
I googled for "forgotten out of the mouth". Dtn 31:21 or quotations of Dtn 31:21 are the only results. This is not very surprising, for it isn´t a very meaningful expression - "to be forgotten out of the mouth of X".
But the sense of the verse isn´t that difficult: It starts with "This song shall testify against them as a witness, FOR...", and then follows the reason: "it shall not be forgotten." This is specified by מִפִּי זַרְעוֹ: "It shall not be forgotten" + מנ+ "mouth of their seed". Obviously, the "mouth of their seed" doesn´t refer to place from where it shall not be forgotten, but to the reason: It shall not be forgotten because they´ll still be singing it (cf. "because their descendants will still be reciting it" (CJB); "But this song will still be sung" (GNT); "Thir children won´t forget this song; they´ll be singing it" (MSG); "Sie werden es immer noch singen" ("They´ll still be singing it") (GN) and so on.). So Dtn 31:21 means "because of the mouths of their descendants" (again, פֶּה refers to an act of speech), or more natural: "because of their descendant´s singing".

I don’t understand what you are getting at in this paragraph, because when all is said and done, when we look at the Hebrew — not translation, but Hebrew — every use of the prefix מ appended to פי that I found has the meaning of “from”. That includes all the examples that you list.

Apart from that I´m not sure what you want to prove. The translation "From the mouth of little children and suckling babes you set up praise." does exist quite often and it is possible that there is an עֹז="praise". I already admitted that, so I don´t know what you are defending or why you are that zeroed in on עֹז.

As I understand it, you’re the one who insists that עז has a particular meaning. As for me? I came to this discussion as an agnostic, ready to evaluate all options. It was after evaluating all options including the whole verse, that I came to a conclusion that your initial question is inaccurate. I’m not zeroing in on one word, rather the whole verse, the total context.

Plus, I know already that you like your interpretation better than the one presented above, but contrasting an interpretation A with an interpretation B is never a good way for disproving interpretation A, so I don´t know why you still go on about it...

See my previous answers and the above.

So, again, I´m really sorry if this is starting to get annoying. Nevertheless, any help in evaluating would be appreciated,

Sebastian

Sebastian: Biblical Hebrew is not as well known as some of its “experts” want to claim. I’m one of the first to admit that there are areas of the language that I don’t know. However, if upon investigating a question we find a pattern that appears, we need to acknowledge that the pattern exists. In investigating your question, I found three patterns I previously didn’t know — that עז sometimes means “utterance”, that every time that it means “utterance” that the context indicates what sort of utterance, and that every time in Hebrew מפי is found, that the prefixed מ has the meaning “from”. Taking these three patterns that I found and applying them to Psalm 8:3 gives the conclusion that the translation of “You establish (set up) praise from the mouths of little children and sucklings” is the correct translation. If it’s the correct translation, then others are wrong. Simple as that.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Sebastian Walter]

Oh. Seems I didn't add my "edit" in time. Sorry about that. (Btw., when I edit a post - is this shown in the RSS-Stream? I edited it about 10-15 times, so this would be a case of "surging the forum" ... If the answer is "yes", I'm sorry about that also.)

Just one closing remark:

Me:
In Job 36:16; Ps 22:22; Am 3:12 it means "from (not: "out of"; cf. Am 3:12) the jaws of X".

This is wrong, of course. Don't remember what I thought when I wrote that. In Am 3:12, the verb isn't יָשַׁע, but נָצַל and the verse doesn't refer to an act of saving, but to the bad condition of Israel after God's punishment of Samaria. A third time: Sorry about that.

Apart from this: This is just endless. Karl isn't bent on disregarding his own interpretation even only for as long as it would need to seriously appreciating the tenability of another interpretation, and I'd be prepared to go on for as long as it would need to get another (and more competent than mine) appreciation of that interpretation.
I don't have time for this, so I'll break the cycle: I give up.

Thanks for the help,
Sebastian.

[kwrandolph]

Sebastian:

Apart from this: This is just endless. Karl isn't bent on disregarding his own interpretation even only for as long as it would need to seriously appreciating the tenability of another interpretation, and I'd be prepared to go on for as long as it would need to get another (and more competent than mine) appreciation of that interpretation.
I don't have time for this, so I'll break the cycle: I give up.

Thanks for the help,
Sebastian.

I’m going by a linguistic principle — if there’s a pattern in a language that results in a particular understanding, and it is attested to by several examples with none that give a different reading, then when a new example of that pattern is found, the linguistic principle is to read it according to the meaning it has in all the other examples where that pattern is found. The only exception is if there’s a good reason to read it differently, usually found in the context around that pattern. (Patterns include syntax, grammar and even word meanings.)

You came to this group with a question that I hadn’t considered before. I considered it. I looked for other examples in Tanakh to see if there were any that supported your reading. I found none. A single word is not evidence, especially where there are homographs for that word that have different meanings. You need to consider the whole context. A translation is not evidence, all it is is how some person(s) understood the text, which could very well be wrong. Dictionaries? I wrote my own because of the mistakes I found in the dictionaries I bought.

Instead of support for your reading, I found patterns that indicate a different reading than what I had expected. In fact, those patterns indicate that that’s the only correct reading for this verse. Further, I found no reason for an exception for those patterns in this verse. I considered your reading, and found it lacking.

If you had asked me to translate this verse two weeks ago, before I did research on it, I would have translated it differently than I do today. I’m willing to change my mind if the evidence points that way, that I was wrong before.

Are you willing to change your mind to follow evidence?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Schubert]

Sebastian,

I've been following this thread with interest. Somewhat belatedly, here are my thoughts on your original question.

As a starting point, it's clear from the differing views in the academic commentaries as well as in translations that the original meaning of this passage is not entirely certain. The only academic commentary that I have ready access to is the one by Peter C. Craigie (second edition by Marvin Tate). He puts forward a translation and view on verses 2 and 3 but concludes that his proposed translation "should be considered as tentative."

So the question is which translation is more probably correct than others. Your starting point in rejecting what one might call the traditional interpretation is that it doesn't make sense.

None of this makes any sense to me. I don´t understand how one can build a bulwark from the mouths of sucklings; I don´t understand how the praise of sucklings can help God in fighting his adversaries and I don´t understand what sucklings are doing in heaven (- and even if one were to translate "by the mouths of sucklings and nursing babies" as "babbling like sucklings and nursing babies", I have no idea who this would refer to: Who is babbling like sucklings above the heavens?).

Craigie provides an approach which, if one accepts the theology behind it, makes it possible to get some meaning from the traditional interpretation: "the Lord establishes his strength through the symbols of weakness, namely babes and sucklings" (p.105). "Babes, on the other hand, symbolize human weakness and humility, but they have a strength greater than that of God's enemies when they take the name of God on their lips; that is, in speaking the name, they acknowledge and in some sense understand the majesty and revelation of God which are implicit in that name. Thus, God may utilize the weak of this world, even the child, both to establish his strength, reflected in his nature and in his creation, and at the same time "to put at rest" (or quiet) the opposition of enemies." (p.107)

Craigie refers to the article by Siggon that you allude to. In addition, the supplementary bibliography in the second edition has an intriguing reference to an article by Thompson, "From the Mouth of Babes, Strength: Psalm 8 and the Book of Isaiah in SJOT 16 (2002) 226 - 45. Do you have access to that article? The publisher's website allows free access to the first page of the article but, having read that page, I'm not certain how much interest the rest of the article might be.

As for עֹז specifically, I can live with the English translation "bulwark" or "strength" – – although my preference is strength. But since the Psalms are poetry with imagery and metaphor, I see why many translations use bulwark. It's more graphic than strength.

But as soon as the translation "because of the wailing" came to my mind, it seemed to me to be the most simply explicable one. Plus: V. 3 is already parallel to V. 5 ("sucklings and nursing babies" <=> "human child"+"pogue (? - don´t know any good english equivalent. אֱנוֹשׁ is often pejorative and refers to human beings as whimps and weaklings)") => "because of the wailing God did X" would fit well in the context: "God reacts to the wailing of suckling and nursing baby" = "God watches out for whimp and weakling".

But I´m not certain about פֶּה="wailing", since פֶּה isn´t defined this way in any dictionary; hence the post.

I think it unlikely that פֶּה means "because of the wailing", in part because there are more probable interpretations when verses 2 and 3 are read as a whole. However, it's an interesting suggestion. Thank you for raising this issue.