inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps. 135:2)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse (“our God”), the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps. 46:7)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form, because “as in most first person plural references in the Psalms, it [is] necessary to translate ‘with us’ using the inclusive pronominal reference, in order to include the psalmist and his fellow worshipers who are addressed in this psalm.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps. 47:4)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form (including the psalmist and all of Israel).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps. 77:13)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse (“our God” in English translations), Bratcher / Reyburn recommend the exclusive form.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps. 105:7)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form. Bratcher / Reyburn recommend the exclusive form, because “the psalmist is speaking of himself and his intended audience, those who shared the experiences alluded to.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps. 115:3)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse (“our God” in English translations), the Jarai translation selects the exclusive form, because “the psalmist is speaking of himself and his intended audience, those who shared the experiences alluded to.”

The Adamawa Fulfulde translation used the inclusive form.

Translation commentary on Psalm 110:4

It is commonly assumed that these words are also addressed to the king; some, however, believe that this is a promise which the king, who speaks in Yahweh’s name, makes to the priest.

In line a the verb sworn means “took a solemn vow” or “made a solemn promise” (Good News Translation), and not “cursed.”

Most translations are like Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation in the interpretation of the promise; this interpretation goes back to the Septuagint, which is also quoted in the New Testament (Heb 5.6; 7.17, 21). The word translated by Good News Translation “in the priestly order” means “manner” (so Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “in the manner of”) and is generally translated order (following the lead of the Septuagint); Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has “of the same category as Melchizedek.” New English Bible has “in the succession of Melchizedek,” and Bible en français courant “in the tradition of Melchizedek.” But the form of the Hebrew word is such that some understand it to mean “because of me” (so An American Translation “You shall be a priest for life, a Melchizedek, because of me”; also New Jerusalem Bible). After the order of … or Good News Translation‘s footnote “in the line of succession to…” may also be rendered in some languages “like those who followed behind Melchizedek” or “like others who came after….”

Melchizedek was the Canaanite king and priest of Jerusalem, when it was still a Jebusite city (Gen 14.18-20). The name is a compound: the first element, malki, means “my king”; the second element, tsedeq, means “righteousness” (see the point made in Heb 7.2). Some doubt that the Hebrew word is a proper name; Dahood translates “his legitimate king,” and New Jerusalem Bible “a rightful king (by My decree).” It seems better to understand it as a proper name.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Psalm 116:15 - 116:16

Verse 15 seems to have little relation to the context; it is best understood as a statement arising from the psalmist’s narrow escape from death (verses 2-3, 8-9). The meaning of the Hebrew word for Precious in this context is a matter of dispute; it is used in other places of precious stones, and in 36.7a it appears in an easily understood context, “How precious, O God, is your constant love!” (and see similar meaning for the related Hebrew verb in 72.14b). But here it seems odd to assume that the psalmist is saying that the death of Yahweh’s people is a precious thing, a desirable thing, in his sight, unless one follows Dahood, who says “This statement that Yahweh puts great value on the death of his faithful assumes that he will take them to himself when they die.” This is possible, but it seems more in keeping with the context of the psalm and of other passages in the Old Testament to take the word Precious here to mean “costly.” So Toombs: “the Lord is not indifferent to whether or not his faithful servants are killed.” Cohen says “God does not regard their death lightly and therefore hastens to protect them.” Fisher has the note “their death is precious, i.e., costly to him.” So Good News Translation “How painful it is to the LORD”; Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “It costs the LORD to see his faithful ones die”; Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “It costs the Lord a lot to see those who love him die”; New Jerusalem Bible has “is grievous in the LORD’s sight”; and Bible en français courant “The Lord sees with sorrow the death of his faithful ones.”

Here saints, as elsewhere, are “God’s own people” (see comments on “godly” in 4.3).

In verse 16 the psalmist appeals to his lifelong devotion to Yahweh, a devotion he inherited from his mother (see similar language in 86.16). The expression I am thy servant should not be translated so as to imply that the psalmist is a domestic employee of the LORD. If this is a likely understanding, it will be better to use a verb form; for example, “O LORD, I am the one who serves you” or “… I am the one who worships you.” It seems that the double expression servant, the son of thy handmaid implies an inherited slave status metaphor, and in that case a stronger term than servant is required; for example, “I am your slave, just as my mother was.” If this is too strong, Good News Translation will serve as a good model. In verse 16c Thou hast loosed my bonds most likely refers to the psalmist’s deliverance from death (verses 2-3, 8-9); some, however, take it literally to mean to be set free from prison. Dahood takes the verb here to be an imperative, “Loose my fetters!”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .