Commentary Roundup: Psalm 9:10

I am trying out a new kind of post I am calling "Commentary Roundup," where I do a deep dive through all major critical commentaries through a certain time period on just one focused issue. This post is about Psalm 9:10 (9:9 in English versification), and I checked commentaries back to 1990.

Psalm 9:10 begins with a waw + jussive. What is the meaning of this construction?

וִ֘יהִ֤י יְהוָ֣ה מִשְׂגָּ֣ב לַדָּ֑ךְ מִ֝שְׂגָּ֗ב לְעִתֹּ֥ות בַּצָּרָֽה׃Psalm 9:10

So may Yahweh be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble

I looked at every major critical commentary going back to 1990. Those who gave a translation can be divided into four categories:

Of these commentaries, only four explain their reasoning:

These commentaries give citations which point us back to the beginning of the 20th century and the end of the 19th century. Duhm (1922) had argued that since the Septuagint has an aorist, we should repoint the verb as וַיְהִי. Gunkel (1926) followed him, and added that we might as well also repoint the first verb of v.11 to a preterite (it is also a waw + jussive in the Masoretic text). This is the basis for past translations of the verb. But against Duhm's claim that "der Juss. ist sinnlos," Delitzsch (1894) had already given a reading of this verb as a "Voluntativ mit Waw der Folge" which expresses the author's desire that the Lord might be a refuge for him. The jussive following in v.11 also expresses what the author desires will follow from this. And König (1927) comes out against the revocalization, arguing that except for a look backwards in the second clause of v.11, which confused the Septuagint translator, vv.9-11 have a future context. Moreover, to translate as present is, he thinks, simply ungrammatical. His own translation is future, and based on §364f of his own Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache (which he cites), he does not think it should be taken as jussive.

Turning to the grammatical works cited, these refer to discussions of the use of waw + volitive conjugations to convey purpose or consequence (Gesenius-Kautzsch §109f; Joüon 116a, e; Driver's A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew §62). Sometimes we see this called a "secondary volitive," on the theory that waw + volitive takes on a purpose/consequence meaning when it follows another volitive, but Joüon and Driver argue that it can have this meaning even following an indicative. Driver lists many examples, including our verse, Psalm 9:10. It's an intriguing list, though I can't help but notice that many of the examples where waw + jussive follows an indicative seem to also involve question words. One would want to think a bit whether there is some sort of subtle syntactic condition operating in these cases.

The phenomenon of the "secondary volitive" or "indirect volitive" is discussed in Waltke/O'Connor §34.6a and Andrason, "The Dynamic Short Yiqtol," Journal for Semitics 21/2 (2012) pp.316-7, and there is a literature that takes this as a merely pragmatic phenomenon rather than a real meaning of the jussive – see Shulman, The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose (1996), pp.102-105, 221; Muraoka, "The Alleged Final Function of the Biblical Syntagm," in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible (1997), pp.229-241. But these discussions confine themselves to the context following another volitive, without delving into Driver and Joüon's claim that it can have this function even after indicatives.

The upshot of all this is that it seems to have been almost a century – since König in 1927 – that there has been any serious discussion of the meaning of the verb in Psalm 9:10, even as commentators continue to translate it in different ways. Of course, I haven't checked rigorously before 1990, but if there is a good discussion back there, it hasn't been cited. As a personal note, I have been a bit disappointed with the commentary tradition as I've done my own work through Book One of the Psalter, particularly with respect to grammatical analysis of the verb forms. It was a bit of a truism I encountered across my graduate studies that verbal use seemed more flexible in Hebrew poetry, and this was sometimes simplified into the maxim that Hebrew poets just sort of use whatever verb conjugation they feel like, with no real rhyme or reason. In that simplified form, at least, the idea is well worth opposing! Perhaps we have given up on figuring out the verbal grammar of the Psalms – that's certainly what my reading suggests. But we shouldn't! Perhaps contemporary researches on Hebrew verbs will start to be reflected more in the future commentary tradition.

On Psalm 9:10, I will give my own opinion. I agree with König that repointing to follow the Greek is not the way to go. The Greek translators were doing their best, but they often are having as hard a time as us. Driver's idea is that this could reflect a logical consequence from verse 9 (God judges the nations) to verse 10 (therefore, he is a refuge for the oppressed). That is a plausible thought, of course, but the grammatical category is rarely attested and open to question. Presumably, the difference between a regular jussive and a "purpose/consecution" jussive is that in the first case, the desire of the speaker is most salient, whereas in the second case, the intention of the subject is most salient, or in the case of mere consequence, intentionality may be entirely muted. Presumably David and God's desires for justice are aligned here, thus the difficulty in interpretation. Is David petitioning God to be the refuge to the oppressed that his position as just judge suggests he should be? Or is he expressing confidence that this is how it must turn out as a consequence of God's position as judge? Both would fit.

The the best solution would interpret v.10 in tandem with v.11, which also begins with a waw + jussive. There, those who know the Lord's name are to trust in him. But crucially, God is addressed in the second person, while vv.9-10 and even 11b refer to him in third person. "And may those who know your name trust in you" - this sounds like a petition. That is the best way to explain the switch to second person address. That would mean that David's desire is most salient - the desire he wishes God to satisfy. In other words, this is a regular jussive, not some more peripheral grammatical use. It's worth saying that per Psalm 10:17, this is a request which is within God's power, since he "steadies the heart" of the oppressed (note that Psalms 9-10 are originally one psalm).

So then why do we start verse 11 with a conjunction? It would be possible just to use an asyndetic jussive. There must be some connection back to verse 10. This makes most sense if verse 10 is part of the same petition - David is asking the just Judge to act as a just Judge. This may seem redundant, but given the gap between appearance and reality amply explored in Psalms 9-10, it is anything but redundant. David both expresses confidence in a theology of divine justice, and asks God to act in a way that demonstrates that it is really true (cf. 9:20-21).

If verse 10 is a petition, this implies that its verb is also a regular jussive. That would leave us to ask about the conjunction at the beginning of this verse. Verse 9 is not a petition, but a description of God's activity of just judgement. It seems plausible to suggest some light logical consecution here - God judges justly, so let him defend the oppressed. This is not because of a special construction of waw + jussive, but just because that is something the waw can do anyway by itself.

Thus my translation: "So may Yahweh be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble." This aligns me with Spieckermann, Böhler, Weber, Jacobson, Schökel/Carniti, and Weiser, though of those only Böhler shows his work.