Part 2 of Exegesis of Psalm 123: 3-4

https://bible.art/

Blessed are all those who wait on Him indeed.

This passage from Isaiah is almost like an answer to our poet's petition. Giving the poet hope and strength by confessing 'The Lord longs to be gracious to you'. And because He longs to show you favor, He will. And He will be just and fair. He is the moral totem of this world and all creation; everything is measured up to Him. If there is a perfect form of what righteousness or justice is...then whatever He says it is, it is. And He is it.

The passage from Isaiah tells us, that those who are making this petition are blessed to wait on the Lord. Can you imagine? Can you understand what it means to be blessed to wait on the Lord? I know that I mistake the blessing to be in the answering. It is humbling to see this. And a blessing to see that I am blessed in the waiting, when I once thought I would only be blessed in a fulfilled answer.

🌸

There is no acknowledgement of vindication in psalm 123. It is strictly a call for deliverance. We do not see any reverence to the Lord for answering in this psalm. We only see the poet entering His courts to make a petition. This reminds me of psalm 120, in which we uncovered it is not a deliverance psalm but a narrative poem of a time our poet made a deliverance petition. It focused on telling us that the Lord will always recompense the wicked. At that we also noted how deliverance and recompense often go hand in hand.

The main thing we identified in part one of this exegesis was - first, our poet making clear the Lord is the master and that he is the servant. And second, making the plea for deliverance.

This psalm is as simple as they come. How could it not be? It is only 4 verse long. Yet I am pleasantly shocked at how many figures of speech are employed in such a short poem.

Let us review, as a reminder, the figures of speech we identified in the first two verses - Five of which, are figures by way of repetition. 

They are: metonymy, epithet, anaphora, synecdoche, parallelism, idioma, asterismos, simile, correspondence, syncrisis, koinotes, anadiplosis and meiosis.

⚜

In this post, we will spend some time on the contrast of the Hebrew and Greek ways of thinking. These are two distinct ways of looking at the world which have their own peculiar ways of expressing thought through words. These mindsets will directly influence how we interpret scripture.

All language is really just the imagery and symbols that express thoughts and intentions and perspectives. So each culture can be seen as a different lens with which to look at the world through. How very different is the Semitic mindset from the Indo-European.

Of course, at some point the Hebrew mindset was influenced by the Greek. Boman marks the days of Alexander the Great and onward as that time when European civilization began producing mixtures and syntheses of these mindsets. This is important to note and study on its own. But first it is good to develop foundational understanding of each before they began influencing each other. So we will digress a little on the unique factors of each mindset that play into the way they think and speak.

I truly think that all exegesis is lacking without some understanding of the ancient Hebrew mindset and language. I hardly know much about it myself and am doing the best I can at my level of understanding. So it is a good opportunity to study and gain some insight. 

I have been raised in a western Christian world view. Which has been built upon that mixture of the mindsets but clearly has stronger roots with the Greek ways of thinking. A lack of understanding the culture of the ancient Hebrew can lead a modern day reader astray. For we may ascribe some meaning by way of Greek values instead of Hebrew and misunderstand the intention in the words. I feel this lack in myself strongly effects my hermeneia. 

🌱🐌

As I have been reading on the different mindsets it came to my attention that there is a great deal of well understood and known things that were just a part of the culture. What I'm getting at right now is how, in the previous post I passed over discussing a certain element of the passage - 'so our eyes are on the Lord'. 

While I still hold that this 'our' is the first-person singular poet standing in the gap for the nation, I must also permit that our poet did know that others were making these petitions as well. As culturally it was a custom and well-practiced daily, that this nation would make petitions corporately. Prayer is communal, corporate. And also that the kings would make decrees requiring the people to make petitions for certain things and at certain times.

Further, we may come to understand through getting to know the culture, that it is the western mindset that sees prayer and worship as singular events and moments separate from everyday life things and doings. But to the Hebrew, worship and reverence were not separated from everyday life. So that at every moment, in daily life and doings, the Hebrew was worshiping the Lord and praying all day. We know that the time David reigned was a period in which the scriptures tell us the people loved the Lord and were honouring Him. It is safe to say then, that our poet king could confidently say 'we look to you', the nation from the heart space of a servant, and it was true through and through. 

I will add again this side note: The verses now have the link to them so you can go directly to biblehub to look at them. Please forgive my Romanized spelling of the Hebrew. You can also find the Hebrew by clicking on the verse links to look at the spelling if you wish. Here is a link to a website in which you can look up the figures of speech. 

And here is an extra companion bible study commentary that is great to look at: free bible commentary psalm 123 . Whenever we look at any bible study, it is good to look at others for more information and comparison. There are of course, many commentaries on biblehub to look at.

🌱

Let's begin by reviewing the last figure of speech which we identified as anadiplosis. Anadiplosis linked verse 2 with verse 3 and verified the second theme. The word that was employed by this figure and links these verses is mercy or chanenu. As it was the last word of the second verse and is now the first word of the third verse. By this figure we are moved into the second member of the poem. It is this figure that specifically links these two couplets and signifies correspondence. otherwise, we couldn't necessarily say the subjects are corresponding.

3 Be gracious to us, Oh Lord, Be gracious to us, For we have had much more than enough of contempt. ဒ chanenu Adonai(YHWH) chanenu, ki rav sahvahnu buz

Then, EPIZEUXIS is immediately employed in verse three with the repetition of 'be gracious to us, oh Lord, be gracious to us'. From έπί (epi)- upon and ζεύγνυμί (zeugnumi) - to yoke or join closely together. In English the figure can be called duplication or iteration. "It is a common and powerful way of emphasizing a particular word by thus marking it and calling attention to it" (Bullinger, 189).

Now we see that the word gracious/mercy has been used in two figures of speech by repetition immediately on top of each other (anadiplosis and epizeuxis). 

Though our poet layered lines and similes that had us reflect and groom our heart as servants with the first two verses, it is not the only main theme. The second main theme is the looking to the Lord, waiting on Him for His solution. 

Now in our second member, the first main theme - mercy/grace has been made manifest. This compression of figures by repetition is so strong that I believe it is clearly the climax of the poem. To be certain, this is the main point of the entire psalm. And it is the deliverance plea itself. The poet has very specifically put all our attention on this call to the Lord for deliverance. And it happens directly in the middle of the psalm.

Here are some Vocab words to look at:

Chanenu - show us favor, have mercy, be gracious. "Properly, to bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior; to favor, bestow; causatively to implore i.e. moved to favor by petition. Beseech, be favorable, be gracious, show mercy upon, have pity upon" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). Sahvahnu - to be filled with, to be satiated. Usually this is used when being filled or satiated with something good. Or like when being filled and satisfied after a meal. buz - humiliation, shamed, contempt, disrespected, despised.

So here is a more literal meaning of what is being said → Be gracious, Oh Lord, show us favor. For much we have been sated/filled with humiliation/contempt. 

The name YHWH is in the vocative; it is an address. The main idea of the verse put forth is that the 'we' has been overcome muchly with contempt. This 'we' is that first person plural, but it is still or first-person singular who is speaking on behalf of the nation. So, when we think about what is this contempt that the poet is facing, we want to consider that it is not about a personal offense but a corporate one. We will look at this a bit more further down.

Concerning Hebrew thought vs Greek thought  

Let's stop for a moment and discuss briefly the effect English as a first language has on one's mindset as they exegete. This is a juicy tangent to take and we won't go into it at length. Just enough to get ones mind grapes stimulated. 

To understand fully what is expressed in the ancient Hebrew text, we need to understand Hebrew concepts apart from the Greek. When we make an assumption about the text based on our own cultural way of thinking we will without doubt misinterpret and mistranslate it. The English language, which is deeply rooted in the Western mindset, seems to actually be inadequate in conveying the Hebrew words meaning.

It is the language that voices ideas, but these can be lost in translation if the mindset that interacts with them is slighted. And these languages are at their foundation essentially different because their thinking is essentially different. This really is too big of a topic to expand on here. What follows may seem short and incomplete. It will have to be flushed out in continued posts.

You see, this verse is very peculiar, but it is not idiomatic. Indeed, there is no figure at play but it jars upon the Greek rooted mindset. For its literal translation has 'For much we have been satiated with contempt'. The verb employed has to do with eating and becoming/being sated. This verse is one of those examples that exposes the gap between Hebrew and Greek mindsets. 

As a general big picture backdrop, Boman notes that "The individual features and peculiarities of each [mindset] stand in inner relationship and are closely connected with the fact that the Greeks experienced existence by seeing and the Hebrews by hearing and perceiving" (Boman, 9). Each of their concept of truth was formed through these different perceptions. "Greek thinking is clear logical knowing; Israelite thinking is deep psychological understanding" (Boman, 204).

Greek is an abstract language while the Hebrew is quite literal, or concrete. Hebrew tends to focus on the verbs or activities of things more than the things themselves. These were a doing and feeling people and their mindset sees things as visible and palpable. Even the letters are literal pictures. 

Abstract thinking expresses a quality apart from the object. The Greek wants to categorize things in form and concept disassociated from the material thing itself. It is spatial thinking, visualizing, defining, theorizing, making connections between concepts that are not tied to concrete experiences or objects.  

The Hebrew wants to get to the heart of the matter, cutting out everything unessential, expressing truth as succinctly as possible. But the Greek wants to seek out, arrange and gather every little detail of information into a pleasing whole under definite rules of thought (think deductive reasoning) that way the truth is proved. 

Boman says this is the difference between analytic and synthetic thinking (202)."The Greek most acutely experiences the world and existence while he stands and reflects, but the Israelite reaches his zenith in ceaseless movement. Rest, harmony composure, and self-control - this is the Greek way; movement, life, deep emotion, and power - this is the Hebrew way" (Boman, 205).

From the Hebrew mindset an object is described in relation to its function and will employ dynamic verbs and nouns - indicating physical action. While the Greek mindset will describe objects in relation to itself; its appearance using adjectives with static verbs, which describe states of being, conditions or qualities. 

For example, the Greek would describe a pencil as - wooden, pointed, long or yellow. while the Hebrew would describe it as - I write with it. This demonstrates how much the Hebrew focuses on the relationship between an object to an action while the Greeks isolate things in static state and categorize. 

"Greek mental activity appears harmonious, prudent, moderate and peaceful; to the person to whom the Greek kind of thinking occurs plainly as ideal, [while] Hebrew thinking and its manner of expression [may] appear exaggerated, immoderate, discordant"(Boman, 27).

Greek thought may be more precise but may be less rich in possibilities. Yet it does not quite have the same potential in the imagery of expression as the Hebrew offers. It's interesting though, how I find myself in each exegesis always trying to whittle all the possibilities that spring from the Hebrew thoughts down to some concise singular Greek expression that makes the most sense to my sensibilities.

The idiosyncrasies of these languages can convey the culture and psyche of its people so clearly. I was thinking about how we see that the Hebrew concrete words and way of using language has shown us how it offers a tether for 1 world concept, 1 understanding of the world. While the great variety of Greek philosophy we have acts as a witness/testimony showing us how abstract words and thinking has provided no solid foundation, leading men into all sorts of world conceptions, like ballons untethered and blowing in the wind. The Hebrew had one specific concept of reality and one God, while the Greeks argued and debated over many constructs of reality and worshipped many gods. 

Here are some examples of concrete words vs abstract:

	Hebrew	Greek
Psalm 30:5	Flared Nostrils	Anger
Psalm 121:8	That point in the distance until you can't see, the horizon	Eternity,  Forever
Psalm 103:8	To fondle, handle tenderly To bend or stoop to an inferior To bow the head or bend the neck	Compassionate  Gracious  Kindness
Psalm 28:7	To be stout in figure, a sturdy body To hide in or under	Strength  Trust

If you want to go deeper down this study, here is the book I read - Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. You can find it on Internet Archive written by Thorleif Boman. 

🌱

So let me ask now, what does this mean - 'For much we have been satiated with contempt'? what does it mean be overcome (in the sense of having much more than enough of something)? What is 'overcome'? What does it mean to endure a great load? The Greek will talk in forms and ideas of immaterial things, but the Hebrew will give us a material reality of what it is. Thus we get 'satiated' or 'filled' like you've eaten the largest meal for the concept of being overcome or overwhelmed or filled up.

For we have had much more than enough, For we have been overcome, For we have greatly endured.

So plainly speaking our poet is saying  'we have really had more than we can bear' or 'our lives have truly been overburdened'. 

4 Our soul has had much more than enough, of the scoffing of those who are at ease; And with the contempt of the proud ⁴Rabbat sahvah alah nafshenu, hala'ag ha'sha ananim; Habbuz ligahyo-nim

Breakdown of literal meaning: greatly our soul has been filled to it, to the brim. It has been filled to the brim with derision/scoffing. The derision of the ones who are at ease. And the loftiness/pride of the oppressors.

When the word soul is put for the person, we have synecdoche of the part in use, in which a part of something is put for the whole. The soul is an integral part of the man, so the soul, would be put for the whole person. But when soul is put for life, metonymy is in use. As soul is put for the effect of it - life giving. Soul is also put for will, affection or desire, which are the operations. This is the case in this instance.

With this in mind we understand that the contempt and derision has been affecting every part of the poets (and the nations) life - physically, mentally, emotionally etc. so much so that they are overwhelmed by it, they can't bear it anymore.

Let's note that this first part of the verse feels very similar to this verse in psalm 120:

123:4 Rabbat sahvah lah nafshenu ⇾ Our soul has been exceedingly satiated

120:6 Rabbat shekanah lah nafshi ⇾ Too much has my soul had its dwelling

So we see correspondence between psalm 123:121 with 'lift up my eyes' and 123:120 with 'too much my soul has...'. It's possible that 'those who are at ease' may be the same as 'those who hate peace' who were mentioned in psalm 120. Because of seeing this, I want to stop and see if there is more correspondence between psalms 120,121,122 & 123 and whether chiasmus is connecting them. But we will do that a little further down.

🍓

We see the use of EPISTROPHE with the word contempt. This is the repetition of the same word or words at the end of the sentence instead of at the beginning [as in anaphora which we had in verse 1]" (Bullinger, 241). The figure is so employed to put emphasis on a certain idea or message. It is marked as a poetic figure as it does so rhythmically. This in turn is done to draw out certain emotional response or expression, the word epistrophe is Greek for a turning upon or wheeling about.

In this instance the poet is bringing attention to the contempt that they, the nation have endured. I will just reiterate that there is interchangeability between the individual and the corporate happening.

As we continue to flush out the meaning of verse 4, let us look at the individual words a bit more. But before that I want to suggest we have the use of synonymia. Which is the repetition of words different in sound and origin but similar in meaning. These words are scorn and contempt. We saw this in psalm 121 as well with the words slumber and sleep.

So we have two Vocab words here, scorn and contempt:

La'ag - scorn, derision, mockery, laugh at. The root of the word means to stammer or speak unintelligible. This word seems to be more like 'making fun of'. buz - humiliation, shamed, contempt, disrespected, despised. The root of the word means to hold as insignificant. This word is more about disdain and looking down on.

I think there is more to look into concerning this word contempt and what it really means culturally, plus its emotional implications. That there is something I don't understand well about the culture and what contempt was from other nations. But, I can't go off on every tangent. So I will just add a few verses that are related.

what is contempt? 

• by this verse in Joshua, it implies even something long lasting like 400 years of slavery. Like a reputation of shame, so that being under contempt is being put to shame.

Joshua 5:9 in which it says "Then the Lord said to Joshua, 'Today I have rolled away the reproach of your slavery in Egypt'".

• But it is also something that causes/brings trouble. Like a present and active disturbance or conflict.

Psalm 42:9-10 "I say to God my rock, 'why have you forgotten me? Why must I walk in sorrow because of the enemy's reproach?' Like the crushing of my bones, my enemies scoff at me, while they say to me all day long, 'where is your God'?

• It also seems to be a punishment, caused by sinning.

Psalm 119:22 "My soul is crushed with longing after your ordinances at all times. You rebuke the arrogant, the cursed, those who wander from your commandments. Take away reproach and contempt from me, for I observe your testimonies. Even though princes sit and talk against me, your servant meditates on your statutes.

Psalm 107:40 "[The Lord] pours out contempt on the nobles and makes them wander in pathless wastelands".

•  And then there is the contempt that seems to be just mocking, being mocked by others.

Psalm 31:17 Oh Lord, let me not be put to shame, for I have called on You. Let the wicked be put to shame; let them lie silent in Sheol. May lying lips be silenced- lips that speak with arrogance against the righteous, full of pride and contempt.

daily dose of Hebrew psalm 123:4

Now let's address who the ones who are doing the mocking are. First, I will share who these other commentaries think these 'prideful oppressors' are referring to.

This companionbiblecondensed suggests this psalm is referencing these nations and instances Sennacherib and Rab-shakeh → 2 Kings 18:19-35, 19;8-13, 2 Chron 32:10-19, Isa 36:4-21;37:8-13. 

While freebiblecommentary suggests it is referencing wealthy and powerful fellow Israelites → Isa 32:11, Amos 6:11. 

I don't have any interest in suggesting any agreement with either of these specific references that these commentaries make. 

But I will say, that the interpretation in which this is a petition from slaves to the Lord for help against bad masters, isn't the most thoughtful or deep. It stems from an incorrect interpretation of the similes in verse 2. Commentators reference psalm 107:40 to supporting this theory.

Now that I have shared these brief suggestions from others, let's look at some other scripture that can give us a broader idea.

So let's restate the who the contempt is coming from again. Psalm 123:4 gives us 'those who are at ease' and the 'prideful oppressors' or 'the contempt of the proud of oppression'. Through correspondence by chiasmus, I want to link these with the 'lying lips/deceitful tongue' and 'those who hate peace' mentioned in psalm 120.

Psalm 73:3-12 gives us a picture of 'those who are at ease' saying they are prosperous and have no pain in death. Their bellies are fat, "They are not in trouble like other people, nor are they tormented together with the rest of mankind. Therefore arrogance is their necklace; the garment of violence covers them... The imaginations of their heart overflow... They mock and wickedly speak of oppression; they speak from on high. They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue parades through the earth. They say, 'how does God know'? And 'is there knowledge with the Most High'? Behold, these are the wicked; and always at ease, they have increased in wealth".

Jeremiah 12:1 says "Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease?"

These verses give us an idea of their character and more of a broader understanding in that it is referring to faithless in the sense of those who do not respect and keep the Lord's commandments.

So that we see 'those at ease' is actually a euphemism and applied to the wicked in general or even nations. → Jeremiah 49:28,31 "Rise up, advance against Kedar and destroy the people of the east! Rise up, attack a nation at ease, that dwells securely declares the Lord". Again we see a link with psalm 120 with the mention of the nation of Kedar. 

Now the 'prideful oppressors' or 'contempt of the proud of oppression' is not a euphemism. If you watch the video in the link above from Daily dose of Hebrew, this is pointed out to us about this word ligahyo-nim:

[the proud] So the K’thîbh: according to the Q’rç the consonants 

are to be read as two words, the proudest oppressors.

And as for the vocab. The word stem is ga'ah - haughty, proud. The root gives us the concrete imagery of being mounted up, with the sense of rising up.

I'm too tired at this point to pull up some related verses. This can be done by the individual.

🌱

So let's look at the structure we marked in the first post again:

First Member + First Couplet First Subject: eyes looking to the Lord	Second Member + Second Couplet Second Subject: mercy from contempt of the proud
Verse 1: A] - I petition the Lord + deep reverence Verse 2: B] - like this - utterly dependent and reverent B] - like this - utterly dependent and reverent A] - like this, the nation petitions the Lord with deep reverence for mercy	Verse 3: C] - mercy ➡ deliverance plea (2x) D] - what deliverance is needed from (contempt) Verse 4: D] - what deliverance is needed from (scoffing/contempt) D] - what deliverance is needed from (contempt)

Remember, the theme of these verses 3 and 4 is mercy and contempt. The poet is driving home their distress, not by expressing their pathos and making it great like we saw in psalm 120 but they are making great that which is causing their suffering. So instead of focusing on how terrible the suffering is, the poet uses a figure of speech here to show us how great the contempt is. What figure of speech is being used? 

We see that we are told 'what from' three times. So a repetition is happening. Is it just parallelism?

First, I want to look at whether gradation is being used. If it is being used, then we have the figure of speech Anabasis employed. Anabasis or gradual ascent is an increase of sense in successive sentences. The literal meaning of the words is to go up a step or a stepping up. "The figure is so called when a writing, speech, or discourse ascends up step by step, each with an increase of emphasis or sense". The Latin has incrementum for increase or increment. "When this increase or ascent is from weaker to stronger expression, and is confined to words, it is called climax. When the sense or gradation is downward instead, it is called catabasis. The figure was also called auxesis, growth or increase. This increase is often connected by parallelism" (Bullinger, 429).

D1] we are greatly filled with contempt

D2] greatly our soul is filled with the scoffing of those who are at ease

D3] And with the contempt of the proud.

I think a person could make a go at demonstrating gradation at work, but by relooking at the structural layout above it seems clear to me that it is not.

Actually, I think it looks like Epidiegesis, also called 're-statement'. This is a repetition in order to restate in full, of a case or narration of facts. "This is a kind of prosapodosis and it is so called when the repetition is for the purpose not of explanation, but of kindling emotion, provoking indignation, or evoking comparison"(Bullinger, 397). It does seem to me that something a little more than just parallelism is at work. Something is happening in which the poet is trying to make that contempt and the effect of the contempt on the nation great by invoking an emotional response.

It could be Epimone - "A repetition in order to dwell upon a subject for the sake of emphasizing it. This figure is so called because the repetition is not of words, but of sense, by way of dwelling upon the principal point of a subject, so that it may be well understood, and remain with due weight upon the mind of the hearer or reader." (Bullinger, 401).

For sure it is not Battologia or vain/meaningless repetition.

Gradation would mean it is building on itself. But rather, it is only reiterating itself. D3] is not building on itself or increasing; it is just additional. It is explaining further D2]. D2] is also likewise additional for the sake of making clear what this contempt is that D1] has mentioned. This is actually just like verse 1 and 2 which gave us a repetition of similes to make clear the point and also invoke deep emotions. In both cases the intention of the poet was to employ a figure of speech to emphasize the point and invoke emotions. In both instances this mission is accomplished and received.

🌱

let us again address chiasmus. In this exegesis of psalm 123 we have been looking at chiasmus from a few different people and they all seem to have slightly different versions/structures of what it is. We looked at Dr. Steven Cook's and Bullinger's versions in the first post.

This week I looked at the authors of Linguistics and Biblical Interpretations understanding of chiasmus which looked more like Bullinger's version of simple correspondence. We left the last post noting that it looked more like simple correspondence was at play and did not confirm whether chiasmus was in use.

What I found interesting in this new perspective was these authors remark that chiasmus is "far more a Semitic phenomenon than it is a Greek phenomenon and is a particular feature of Hebrew poetry" (Cotterell & Turner, 296). I thought it is very Greek. This makes me think that Bullinger's specific definition of chiasmus is the very Greek version and it is good to give grace to Hebrew poetic style apart from the Greek literary structures. Which means the Hebrew 'chiasmus' may not have such a strict definition. Cotterell and Turner say the term suggests "the form involves a crossing over in which words, phrases, sentences and even longer texts are sequenced not linearly, but in a cross-pattern" (Cotrell & Turner, 295). They then reference a few examples in scripture that in my opinion, follow Bullinger's simple correspondence pattern.

So what's the point when applying chiasmus to the structure? What does it offer to the meaning or feeling? Of course, when any literary device is employed, it is always to communicate some attitude, or feeling, or opinion or point etc. Cotterell and Turner suggest that everything that figurative language makes use of is defined as 'affective language'. The purpose is to affect the emotions and mood. That "meaning is inextricably bound up in context and cotext" (Cotrell & Turner, 294). So that when chiasmus is employed, it is making up the bigger context that plays a big part of the meaning and cotext with the new subjects and members. 

If we look at psalm 123 in relation to itself (which is what we have been doing), verses 3&4 would make up our second couplet and second member. 

In the previous post we noted seeing the structure A B B' A' within the first member which is Bullinger's simple correspondence pattern.

But we don't see this same pattern in this second part with C D D' D''. Now, chiasmus doesn't require identical patterns to be employed in each member. To the right is that structure we looked at in the first post. This couplet would be making up that other half of our X shape. But if we only acknowledge the two members of this psalm, I would still say I am not sure if chiasmus is in use. I do think we have shown correspondence is though.

Now let's talk about whether correspondence, specifically chiasmus is happening between psalms. If you remember further above, we had noticed a correspondence happening between psalms 123:121 and 123:120. Let's look at that. In investigating whether chiasmus is at work in this psalm and not really feeling like this psalm is long enough to create sufficient evidence, it came to mind that it is possible that these songs of ascent may be corresponding to each other. when I went back to see if we could make a case for this, I gathered this information, which shows that we have multiple subjects/members that are corresponding to each other. Here is some of the bigger context and cotext at work.

Psalm 120 - RECOMPENSE OF THE LORD

Psalm 121 - THE LORD IS MY/OUR GUARDIAN (master)

Psalm 122 - THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL IS A SERVANT

Psalm 123 - DELIVERANCE 

This is some of the basic correspondence I found. There is more interweaving between psalms 121 & 122 with 120 as well as a great deal of correspondence between psalm 121 & 122 with 123. Within each psalms members we do see an alternating pattern or even cross-pattern structures at play. So that psalm 123 is actually made up of points already expressed and reiterated.

Psalm 123: Verse 1 ⇄ I petition the Lord; He is my help + reverence ⇄ linked to Psalm 121:1&2

 

Psalm 123: Verse 2 ⇄ Jerusalem (the house of David/nation of Israel) the servant of the Lord ⇄ linked to Psalm 122

Psalm 123: Verse 3 ⇄ Deliver me/us ⇄ linked to Psalm 120:2

Psalm 123: Verse 4 ⇄ My/Our soul is overwhelmed + from contempt ⇄ linked to Psalm 120:6&2

And it becomes clear that these psalms, that had before seemed unrelated to me, bringing up different subjects out of nowhere, are actually very related and bringing forth subjects in which they are expanded on and shoot off to create specific affective moods in the next psalm(s). We will keep an eye on this correspondence by chiasmus as we continue to move through the psalms of ascent and see if this is just me forcefully applying chiasmus or whether it carries though and continues to show up.

🌿

CONCLUSION

How interesting that the first couplet makes use of ANAPHORA in the first verse, while the second couplet makes use of EPISTROPHE in its second verse. The two couplets are then linked by KOINOTES which is a combination of anaphora and epistrophe; but affecting phrases rather than single words. At the same time, they are also linked by ANADIPLOSIS which repeats one specific word to unite the first couplet with the second couplet through the last verse of the first couplet with the first verse of the second couplet. And the next sentence doubles down on that one word by EPIZEUXIS. Then even more! PARRALELLISM and EPIDIEGESIS are employed in each couplet to layer everything together and CORRESPONDCE to link the members!  

Wow, if ever there was a poem that uses a figure of repetition, on top of a figure of repetition, on top of a figure of repetition, on top of a figure of repetition, on top of a figure of repetition!

ANAPHORA→PARRALELLISM→ SYNCRISIS→ANADIPLOSIS→KOINOTES→CORRESPONDENCE→EPIZEUXIS→SYNONYMIA→EPIDIEGESIS→EPISTROPHE→CHIASMUS

I enjoyed trying to prove chiasmus was at play. I had thought when I concluded the first half of this post that it is not but now, I am suggesting that it is. But not in and of itself(psalm 123) alone, but together with these other psalms. Chiasmus is a figure that makes use of repetition. So now, having completed this entire exegesis, the total number of figures of speech by repetition is 11.

Let me say no more for I have already said enough. Thanks again for reading through with me :).

WORKS CITED:

Bible, Multiple translations pulled from biblehub.com.

Bullinger, E.W. Figures of Speech used in the Bible. 1898.

Martino Publishing. Eyre & Spottiswoode London.

Boman, Thorleif. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. 1960.

The Westminster press. Philidelphia USA.

Ausubel, Nathan. The book of Jewish Knowledge. 1964.

Crown Publishers, INC. New York USA.

Cotterell & Turner, Peter & Max. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. 1989.

InterVaristy Press. Downers Grove, Illinois USA.