After spending four weeks reading and praying the NRSV Psalms according to the schedule of the Liturgy of the Hours, I would highlight a few general themes that are relevant for a Christological reading:
Inclusive Plural Language
The NRSV’s use of the plural words “those” and “they” instead of “the man” and “he” is not universal — a fact that surprised me. It is most noticeable in the wisdom psalms — psalms that distinguish between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (for example, Psalm 1, 34, and 37). Since Jesus is “the righteous one” (1 John 2:1 – NABRE), any reference to “the just man” in the Psalms can be understood as fulfilled in Jesus. When these passages are translated in the plural, the language softens the impact of calling to mind an individual just man. In most cases, I found this to be a minor point. Armed with the understanding that Jesus is righteous, and the rest of us participate in his righteousness through our baptism and life of faithfulness, it is still very possible to read these Psalms as referring to Jesus and the Church.
I also noticed that the psalmist frequently shifts back and forth from singular to plural forms in a single psalm (see Psalm 37 in the NABRE as an example). From the standpoint of the original meaning of the Hebrew, the NRSV’s translation is often quite defensible, because the key message is often the contrast between the way of the just and the way of the wicked.
By contrast, the NRSV uses singular “he” pronouns in the royal and messianic psalms when referring to the king (see Psalm 21 as an example). As the heir of David’s throne and the King of Kings (Revelation 17:14), Jesus fulfills the hopes, aspirations, and prophecies of these psalms. The NRSV does not change the singular grammar of these passages.
Finally, there are many psalms of individual lament or thanksgiving where the psalmist speaks in the first person singular. The NRSV’s use of plural third-person inclusive language does not affect these first person passages. Most or all of these psalms can be read in the voice of Jesus, either bearing the infirmities of his people (Isaiah 53:4) or praising his Father in love, joy, and victory.
Differences Between the Hebrew and Greek Text
The NRSV’s preference for the Hebrew text (unless there is good reason to believe that the Hebrew text is incorrect) leads it to translate some key Christological verses differently than the Septuagint. The two primary examples I noted were Psalm 22:16 (“my hands and my feet have shriveled”) and Psalm 110:3 (“From the womb of the morning, like dew, your youth will come to you.”).
“Mortals” and “Human Beings” instead of “Son of Man”
In a couple of psalms, the NRSV uses the terms “mortals” or “human beings” instead of the Hebrew term “son of man” (see Psalm 8 and Psalm 144). There are two issues here: the change from a singular Hebrew expression to a plural expression in English and the use of an alternative for a term that Jesus applied to himself. In my personal opinion, the plural form is the more significant problem for reading the text Christologically, since neither of these psalms use the term “son of man” as a title. Furthermore, the use of “son of man” in both psalms is very clearly a reference to man or humanity in general. Nonetheless, the Letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 2:5-9) explicitly draws a connection between Psalm 8 and Jesus — a connection that is not quite as intuitive with the plural phrasing used in the NRSV.
Notes on Individual Psalms
Having summarized the key themes that stood out to me during the four weeks, I’ll proceed to my notes on individual psalms. As I mentioned in my introduction to this series (see part 1 here), my approach was to pray each psalm, and if anything struck me as affecting a Christological reading of the psalm, I made a note of it afterward. As such, this is not an exhaustive list, but it should provide useful details. I haven’t quoted each individual psalm in the notes, so referring to a Bible or Bible Gateway could be helpful to follow the notes.
Psalm 1
The NRSV uses “those” and “they” instead of “the man” and “he” in verses 1-3, referring to the just man. Comparing to the NABRE, the psalmist appears to contrast a singular just man with the wicked in general. The NRSV uses plural grammar for both. The plural doesn’t preclude reading the psalm in reference to Christ, but it lessens the intuitive connection between a general just man and the Righteous One.
Psalm 8
In verses 4-6, the NRSV uses plural forms instead of singular. It also uses “mortals” instead of “son of man,” but it does include a footnote pointing out that “son of man” is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The plural form does make it a bit harder to immediately see this psalm as referring to Christ, although it is certainly still possible. As the representative of humanity, Christ can be seen as the exemplar of the human being who God is mindful of and the mortal who God cares for.
Psalm 15
In verses 2-5, the NRSV uses plural instead of singular in the Grail psalms. This is a case where the singular could be more easily applied to Jesus as the exemplar of the one who walks blamelessly.
Psalm 16
In verse 11, the NRSV says “in your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” This contrasts with every other Catholic Bible I’ve checked, which uses the preposition “at” instead of “in.” Here are a list of translations I’ve checked:
“At”:
- NABRE
- NCB
- NJB
- REB
- Lexham English Septuagint
- ESV-CE
- Bible for Everyone (Goldingay)
- Revised Grail Psalms
“In”:
- NRSV
- RSV
- RSV-CE
- NET (in the notes, text has a more dynamic translation without “at” or “in”)
- CEB
The NET Bible notes offer a literal translation of the Hebrew: “delight [is] in your right hand forever.”
After trying to understand the original language here, this appears to come down to a fine point of grammar which I am not qualified to judge.
Psalm 22
In verse 16: “my hands and feet have shriveled.” NRSVue changes this to “they bound my hands and feet.” Both versions have a note saying the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.
Psalm 24
In verses 3-5 the NRSV uses plural “they” instead of “he” in the Grail psalms. In verse 6, both translations use a plural. If the plural in verse 6 is a correct indicator of the underlying Hebrew, it suggests to me that the NRSV is not outrageous to pluralize the whole passage. The main point is an exhortation to be faithful and single-minded in devotion to God. But this is a case where the singular form can make a more obvious connection to Christ. The man who had clean hands and a pure heart, who did not lift up his soul to what was false or swear deceitfully was Christ, and he received a blessing from God his Father.
Psalm 34
In verses 19-20, the NRSV uses plural pronouns while the NABRE (verses 20-21 in the NABRE) uses singular male pronouns:
Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
but the Lord rescues them from them all.
He keeps all their bones;
not one of them will be broken.
Of course, this is a verse that applies to Christ. Does the plural construction preclude that? I find it a very minor point in this case, especially since most of the psalm is speaking in generalities about the wicked and the righteous. Christ is the exemplar of the righteous.
Psalm 37
In verses 23-24, the NRSV uses plural instead of singular, but it notes all these in the textual notes. Then, in other parts of the psalm (verses 32-34, for example), it continues using plural forms without any textual notes, even though the NABRE is singular. In my view, 32-34 is more clearly referring to Christ than 23-24 (although both could be interpreted that way). Looking at the NABRE, it looks like the psalmist himself alternates between singular and plural throughout this psalm. A key point is the contrast between the wicked and the righteous, both singular and plural. I don’t find the plural form in the NRSV to be that problematic here.
Psalm 40
In verse 4, the NRSV uses plural instead of singular:
Happy are those who make
the Lord their trust,
who do not turn to the proud,
In this case, I don’t believe it makes much difference. The surrounding context is that the psalmist has just transitioned from the first person (praising the LORD for rescuing him) to the third person. This transition seems to be a move toward instruction. After praising the LORD for deliverance, the psalmist addresses a beatitude to his listeners: the person who trusts in the LORD will be blessed, not the one who follows the proud. The underlying language appears to be singular here (referring to the NABRE), but I don’t find this to have any major impact on the meaning or even the Christological sense, since the first person speaking can be seen to be Christ.
Psalm 45
Excellent! The lordship of Christ is easy to identify here.
Psalm 89
Both the NRSV and NRSV-UE use “he” and “his” in referring to the LORD’s anointed in this psalm. No attempt to make it inclusive. This makes sense, because the anointed is the king. It’s easy to apply these verses to Christ.
Psalm 91
The final 3 verses in the NRSV uses plural instead of singular construction:
Those who love me, I will deliver;
I will protect those who know my name.
When they call to me, I will answer them;
I will be with them in trouble,
I will rescue them and honor them.
With long life I will satisfy them,
and show them my salvation.
Since this is taken to refer to Christ, who loved his Father and called out to him, the plural form does lessen the impact a bit during prayer. It’s certainly possible to consciously remember that the verses apply to Christ, but the plural form makes it less “punchy.” On the other hand, does using the “he” and “him” pronouns make it harder for women to apply this to themselves, trusting that God will protect them if they follow in Christ’s footsteps and put their trust in God? I find myself somewhat doubtful of that, but it’s worth asking faithful women if they have trouble with that. Certainly the text also applies to all Christians who are in Christ.
Psalm 110
Verse 3 in the NRSV follows the Masoretic Text instead of the LXX. The LXX has imagery that is much more evocative of Christ (“in holy splendor, before the daystar, like the dew, I have begotten you.” – NCB). By contrast, the NRSV has:
on the holy mountains.
From the womb of the morning,
like dew, your youth will come to you.
This removes the “I have begotten you” language which is so evocative of Christ. Other translations that follow the MT have similar renderings (ESV, for example). This is more a case of textual decisions than inclusive language, obviously.
Psalm 112
The NRSV uses plural forms throughout this entire psalm, while the Grail uses singular forms. Overall, the psalm praises a righteous person who fears the LORD and ends by saying that the wicked man will see the blessings that the righteous man receives and be angry. Frank Matera encourages reading this psalm as an instruction from Christ to his Church. Christ is the righteous one, and he instructs us on living by his example. Matera reverts to a plural “those” as he discusses the psalm.
Psalm 127
In verses 3-5, the NRSV uses the words “sons” (instead of children) and “the man” instead of “the one.” There isn’t an obvious Christological reason to do this. This might be one of those rare instances where the NRSV translators thought the exclusive male singular was culturally the correct way to interpret the passage. Interestingly, the updated edition also left the exclusive male singular intact in these verses.
Psalm 144
In verse 3, the NRSV uses “human beings” and “mortals” in place of “man” and “son of man” used in the Revised Grail Psalms. Then in verse 4, it uses “they” and “their” in place of “man” and “his” in the NABRE psalms. Overall, I think the NRSV’s translation captures the meaning here, but it does remove the “son of man” language which could be seen as prophetic. The point of the passage is similar to Psalm 8, though: what are people that God gives any thought to them?