# Talk:Psalm 84

Gerda, is there a reason we don't have the Vulgate number (83) in parenthesis? I trust your judgement and background knowledge on these sort of things. 84 is obviously the correct numbering in English and in countries that are historically Protestant, but might be confusing to readers in historically Orthodox or Catholic nations. The way this is typically threaded in Catholic studies text published in English is with the parenthesis (as seen in the source I just added re: Thomas More). I have no strong desire to include it if there is a good reason not to, I was just curious. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I simply didn't check. Will add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For example.

Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)—Broyles, C. G.
Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible—Dunn, J. D. G. & Rogerson, J. W.
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel—Smith, M. S.
Studies in the History of Religions—Layton, B.
In the Shadow of History: Jews and Conversos at the Dawn of Modernity—Faur, J.
A History of Baroque Music—Buelow, G. J
Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives 2—Thompson, T. L.
Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History: Lifting a Veil on Liturgy's Past—Berger, T.
A History of Pastoral Care—Evans, G. R.
Exploring Psalms: An Expository Commentary, Volume 1—Phillips, J.
and more generally (although most of the above also discuss psalms holistically)
Abiding Astonishment: Psalms, Modernity, and the Making of History—Brueggemann, W.
The Psalms as Christian Worship: An Historical Commentary—Waltke, B. K., Houston J. M. & Moore, E.
Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction—Bullock, C. H.
The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary—Eaton, J. H.
Psalms—Mays, J. L.
The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms—Brown, W. P.  ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Latin beginning of the psalm does not need to be mentioned in the lead. Your opinions? 20:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the Incipit. Given that it is a fairly significant Psalm in the Western liturgical tradition (of which Latin is the historical language until the Reformation), having the Latin name for it is pretty important. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We can't say with certainty: after exile, hope, and a bit later: scholars disagree whether before exile or after. We'll need to find a way for both views, but it's not easy, and every day I did many other things before, and then was too tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Meant to get around to this, Gerda. Sorry for not responding, was working on finishing up another project today. Yes, I went off of what the source said, which painted the time as exilic. I haven't look too deeply at the sourcing (biblical scholarship isn't really my thing so much as religious history, but there is enough overlap that I can follow and figure out who to use the sourcing in a wp article.) If you have other sourcing for the time of composition, I can look at it and try to figure out a way incorporate the different views. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's about the same length as the article, is that really necessary? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with TRM that this could be cut. I'd suggest mainly including the academic sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It's only cited sources, afaik, - the others are in Further reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, its your sfn reference list. No, that makes sense now. I’ve always seen/done it as “notes” and “references” but this also works. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I use "notes" for footnotes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I need to ask: why, on the English Wikipedia, do we need to include the full Psalm text in Hebrew? Literacy among readers will be fairly close to nil. Other than its decorative value, we're simply not able to make use of it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though there is a large swathe of edits occurring today with summaries along the lines of "remove... copyright... text".  For example here is the edit for this Psalm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psalm_84&diff=916612056&oldid=909433661
In this case, a table which used to contain an English translation no longer does so, hence the effect you know see.  I don't know the background, but given its systematic nature and that I've seen a couple of accounts involved, which seem to be well-established accounts (i.e. not fly-by-night vandals), I presume there must be some legitimacy underlying it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so they removed the copyrighted English text. That's great; that's not my question, which is: why, on English Wikipedia, are we reproducing full Hebrew texts of Psalms that nobody can read or understand? Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you (y'all) supply a translation of the Hebrew text (not any Christian-biased translation) of this psalm)? I would if I could. The Hebrew wasn't meant to stand alone. More on my talk, in case of interest, look for September 2019 (the second).

Since Sefaria now has the 1985 JPS translation wouldn't that be preferable to the current 1917 JPS translation? Mcljlm (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)