Talk:Psalms

Proposed changes to the Lead

The lead of this article is one dense paragraph with several complex sentences and does not adequately summarize of the key topics of the article per MOS:LEAD. I am proposing these changes:

1. A small tweak to clarify for ordinary non-expert readers that Ketuvim ("Writings") is the third section of the Tanakh, and that the Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible in English (i.e., Explain in plain English what Tanakh means per MOS:LEADSENTENCE).

The current first sentence reads:

The Book of Psalms (/sɑː(l)mz/ SAH(L)MZ or /sɔː(l)mz/ SAW(L)MZ; (Hebrew: תְּהִלִּים, Tehillim, lit. "praises"), also known as the Psalms, or the Psalter, is the first book of the Ketuvim ("Writings"), the third section of the Tanakh, and a book of the Old Testament.

The amended sentence would read as follows:

The Book of Psalms (/sɑː(l)mz/ SAH(L)MZ or /sɔː(l)mz/ SAW(L)MZ; Hebrew: תְּהִלִּים, Tehillim, lit. "praises"), also known as the Psalms, or the Psalter, is the first book of the third section of the Hebrew Bible called Ketuvim ("Writings"), and a book of the Old Testament.

2. This current sentence:

“The book is an anthology of individual Hebrew religious hymns, with 150 in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition and more in the Eastern Christian churches.“

is complex and the meaning could be more straightforwardly conveyed in two sentences.

I propose splitting this sentence as follows, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE and the plain English principle (and some links):

The book is an anthology of Hebrew religious hymns. In the Jewish and Western Christian traditions, there are 150 psalms, and several more in the Eastern Christian churches.

3. Per MOS:LEAD that it "…stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic… and summarize the most important points…" I think this is an appropriate place to add a short summary of the book's content based on the details in the section on Structure in the article, since a reader could reasonably expect to find such a synopsis in the overview of a book, and as is the case in other the well-developed leads of other articles on the books of the Bible.

I propose adding the following text to the previous two sentences, to form one new paragraph, using the key details elaborated upon and referenced in the main body of the article at Primary types:

The book is divided into five sections, each ending with a doxology, or a hymn of praise. There are several types of psalms, including hymns or songs of praise, communal and individual laments, royal psalms and individual thanksgivings. The book also includes psalms of communal thanksgiving, wisdom, pilgrimage and other categories.

4. I think the current statement in the lead:

Many are linked to the name of David, but modern mainstream scholarship rejects his authorship, instead attributing the composition of the psalms to various authors writing between the 9th and 5th centuries BC.

needs to clarify and differentiate between two issues: the authorship of the psalms according to modern scholarship and the fact that about half of the psalms contain the superscription ‘of David’ and that quite a number of other psalms are also linked or attributed to other names (whether historically accurate or not) as this is a distinctive characteristic of the book as detailed in the section Superscriptions.

I put forward the following sentences as a proposal to resolve this tension to initiate crafting a satisfactory version:

While many contain attributions to the name of King David and other Biblical figures including Asaph, the sons of Korah, and Solomon, David’s [or perhaps their?] authorship is not accepted by most modern Bible scholars, who instead attribute the composition of the psalms to various authors writing between the 9th and 5th centuries BC.

Previously, I had added this sentence also as a more meaningful description of the timeframe 9th to 5th centuries BC, or as a clarification and propose adding this too:

The psalms were written from the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan to the post-exilic period and the book was probably compiled and edited into its present form during the post-exilic period (5th century BC).

(I’ve read the discussion regarding the authors of the psalms at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psalms/Archive_1#The_Authors_of_the_Psalms but I think there is still room for improvement here.)

5. The article contains a fairly substantial section on the psalms’ interpretation and influence in this section. Again per MOS:LEAD to summarize the most important points of the article in the lead, I propose adding the following texts, or something along these lines:

The psalms were likely used in the worship practices of ancient Israel, and have been used in both Jewish and Christian liturgy from antiquity until modern times. The psalms have been influential in shaping religious and cultural practices their poetic language and imagery have inspired works of art, music, and literature.

6. Finally, the etymology of the word psalms in English isn’t a major topic of the article, and it’s unlikely what most people who just want an overview of the topic are going to want to know first. so I propose putting these sentences at the end of the lead, and with a short explanation of the Hebrew name and the corresponding name of the book in the Islamic tradition:

In English, the title of the book is derived from the Greek word ψαλμοί (psalmoi), meaning "instrumental music" and, by extension, "the words accompanying the music". The Hebrew name of the book, Tehillim (תהילים), means “praises,” as it contains many praises and supplications to God. In the Quran, the Arabic word Zabur is used for in reference to the psalms.

--Chefallen (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Any comments? @Melcous do you have any feedback on this? Chefallen (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Chefallen, you've made a sincere effort to discuss your proposals and you've had no responses; I think you're justified in going ahead. Achar Sva (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Achar Sva. I'll go ahead and make the change I've described above. --Chefallen (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Chefallen I have been on a wikibreak so was not able to respond. Overall I think what you have done is good. I agree there is still work to be done on number 4, which conflates superscriptions and composition, and for example your phrasing "many contain attributions" I do not think is either an accurate summary of what the article currently says, nor of the understandings of לדוד. Melcous (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The article does state that about half of all the psalms begin with "...of David", which is generally how לדוד is translated from the Hebrew. How would you suggest improving the phrasing of the summary of that in the lead? Chefallen (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reformatting individual psalm article leads

I noticed a great deal of inconsistency with the formatting of individual psalm articles, particularly in the lead sections. Some had the 'Bible chapter' infobox, others didn't. The same is true with using bold text for alternative names (i.e., Latin and English incipits), a topic discussed by myself and @Gerda Arendt at User_talk:EtheyB#Psalms. I contend that per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES at least Latin incipits (e.g. "Beati inmaculati in via") should be in bold, since they are (historically and presently) very commonly referred to by these names (i.e., in musical compositions, Latin rubrics, the Book of Common Prayer [1], the Roman Breviary [2] and other breviaries/psalters). English and Hebrew incipits may also be bold.

We want to bring this discussion to a broader forum to avert an edit war and would greatly appreciate the input of other users. Thank you. EtheyB (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As said in the long previous discussion: I don't believe that we need to bold incipits of the psalms, be it in English, Latin or Hebrew. They are incipits and not really titles. The title of Psalm 119 is Psalm 119. The only alternative title to bold, imho, is Psalm 118, in the (often) different numbering system of the Vulgate. Both English (KJV) and Latin beginnings feature prominently in the infobox. The version I support is therefore what we had before bolding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In general I agree with Gerda Arendt, but there are some Psalms whose alternative title meets the MOS:BOLDALTNAMES threshold of being a significant alternative title and/or a redirected title: an obvious example is Psalm 23, Vulgate Psalm 22, which is widely known in English as The Lord is my Shepherd, the latter being a redirect to the Psalm's page. BobKilcoyne (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Incipits should be treated as equivalent to titles. As our article Incipit points out "Before the development of titles, texts were often referred to by their incipits...", "...the practice of the incipit predates classical antiquity by several millennia and can be found in various parts of the world", and "the practice of referring to texts by their initial words remains commonplace." Psalm numbers are not informative and are ambiguous in many cases. I see no reason not to bold incipits in Psalm articles.--agr (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Masoretic vs LXX numbering

Confusing: enWiki used to link mainly to the Bible Gateway website (now BGW seems to have stopped cooperating, templates aren't working anymore), and with the oremus website. BGW uses the Masoretic numbers (all Cristian as well as the "Complete Jewish Bible" and "Orthodox Jewish Bible" versions), and so does oremus. One can check that for instance by comparing Ps. 113 at Mechon Mamre (Ps. 113 here) and on those two websites. To find the LXX numbers actually indicated in brackets, one must go for instance on Bible Hub.

MY PROBLEM:

1. Linking as we do, w/o explanation, leaves out those users who are accustomed to, and refer to, the LXX numbering.
2. There's no mention in that section of Protestant practice. It would be logical to think that they go with the Masoretic system, but it must be stated.

As it is now, enWiki id using one single harmonised numbering across the board, all-Madoretic, and that leaves some large denominations out.

The article only mentions that the official Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic texts use the Greek numbering, and that the Modern Catholic prefer the Hebrew numbering. Arminden (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Second Book of the Poetry

This article says quite early on that the Book of Psalms is the first book of the Ketuvim. Should it not also say that some Christians see it as the second book of the five poetic books of the Old Testament, coming after the Book of Job but immediately before the Book of Proverbs and before the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs? YTKJ (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)