Mazmur 49:6-9

49:6 They trust ¹  in their wealth

and boast ²  in their great riches.

49:7 Certainly a man cannot rescue his brother; ³ 

he cannot pay God an adequate ransom price ⁴ 

49:8 (the ransom price for a human life ⁵  is too high,

and people go to their final destiny), ⁶ 

49:9 so that he might continue to live ⁷  forever

and not experience death. ⁸ 

Mazmur 52:6-7

52:6 When the godly see this, they will be filled with awe,

and will mock the evildoer, saying: ⁹ 

52:7 “Look, here is the man who would not make ¹⁰  God his protector!

He trusted in his great wealth

and was confident about his plans to destroy others.” ¹¹ 

Mazmur 62:10

62:10 Do not trust in what you can gain by oppression! ¹² 

Do not put false confidence in what you can gain by robbery! ¹³ 

If wealth increases, do not become attached to it! ¹⁴ 

[49:6]  ¹ tn Heb “the ones who trust.” The substantival participle stands in apposition to “those who deceive me” (v. 5).

[49:6]  ² tn The imperfect verbal form emphasizes their characteristic behavior.

[49:7]  ³ tn Heb “a brother, he surely does not ransom, a man.” The sequence אִישׁ...אָח (’akh...’ish, “a brother…a man”) is problematic, for the usual combination is אָח...אָח (“a brother…a brother”) or אִישׁ...אִישׁ (“a man…a man”). When אִישׁ and אָח are combined, the usual order is אָח...אִישׁ (“a man…a brother”), with “brother” having a third masculine singular suffix, “his brother.” This suggests that “brother” is the object of the verb and “man” the subject. (1) Perhaps the altered word order and absence of the suffix can be explained by the text’s poetic character, for ellipsis is a feature of Hebrew poetic style. (2) Another option, supported by a few medieval Hebrew mss, is to emend “brother” to the similar sounding אַךְ (’akh, “surely; but”) which occurs in v. 15 before the verb פָּדָה (padah, “ransom”). If this reading is accepted the Qal imperfect יִפְדֶּה (yifddeh, “he can [not] ransom”) would need to be emended to a Niphal (passive) form, יִפָּדֶה (yifadeh, “he can[not] be ransomed”) unless one understands the subject of the Qal verb to be indefinite (“one cannot redeem a man”). (A Niphal imperfect can be collocated with a Qal infinitive absolute. See GKC 344-45 §113.w.) No matter how one decides the textual issues, the imperfect in this case is modal, indicating potential, and the infinitive absolute emphasizes the statement.

[49:7]  ⁴ tn Heb “he cannot pay to God his ransom price.” Num 35:31 may supply the legal background for the metaphorical language used here. The psalmist pictures God as having a claim on the soul of the individual. When God comes to claim the life that ultimately belongs to him, he demands a ransom price that is beyond the capability of anyone to pay. The psalmist’s point is that God has ultimate authority over life and death; all the money in the world cannot buy anyone a single day of life beyond what God has decreed.

[49:8]  ⁵ tn Heb “their life.” Some emend the text to “his life,” understanding the antecedent of the pronoun as “brother” in v. 7. However, the man and brother of v. 7 are representative of the human race in general, perhaps explaining why a plural pronoun appears in v. 8. Of course, the plural pronoun could refer back to “the rich” mentioned in v. 6. Another option (the one assumed in the translation) is that the suffixed mem is enclitic. In this case the “ransom price for human life” is referred to an abstract, general way.

[49:8]  ⁶ tn Heb “and one ceases forever.” The translation assumes an indefinite subject which in turn is representative of the entire human race (“one,” that refers to human beings without exception). The verb חָדַל (khadal, “cease”) is understood in the sense of “come to an end; fail” (i.e., die). Another option is to translate, “and one ceases/refrains forever.” In this case the idea is that the living, convinced of the reality of human mortality, give up all hope of “buying off” God and refrain from trying to do so.

[49:9]  ⁷ tn The jussive verbal form with vav (ו) conjunctive is taken as indicating purpose/result in relation to the statement made in v. 8. (On this use of the jussive after an imperfect, see GKC 322 §109.f.) In this case v. 8 is understood as a parenthetical comment.

[49:9]  ⁸ tn Heb “see the Pit.” The Hebrew term שַׁחַת (shakhat, “pit”) is often used as a title for Sheol (see Pss 16:10; 30:9; 55:24; 103:4).

[52:6]  ⁹ tn Heb “and the godly will see and will fear and at him will laugh.”

[52:7]  ¹⁰ tn The imperfect verbal form here draws attention to the ongoing nature of the action. The evildoer customarily rejected God and trusted in his own abilities. Another option is to take the imperfect as generalizing, “[here is the man who] does not make.”

[52:7]  ¹¹ tn Heb “he was strong in his destruction.” “Destruction” must refer back to the destructive plans mentioned in v. 2. The verb (derived from the root עָזַז, ’azaz, “be strong”) as it stands is either an imperfect (if so, probably used in a customary sense) or a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive). However the form should probably be emended to וַיָּעָז (vayya’az), a Qal preterite (with vav [ו] consecutive) from עָזַז. Note the preterite form without vav (ו) consecutive in the preceding line (וַיִּבְטַח, vayyivtakh, “and he trusted”). The prefixed vav (ו) was likely omitted by haplography (note the suffixed vav [ו] on the preceding עָשְׁרוֹ, ’oshro, “his wealth”).

[62:10]  ¹² tn Heb “do not trust in oppression.” Here “oppression” stands by metonymy for the riches that can be gained by oppressive measures, as the final line of the verse indicates.

[62:10]  ¹³ tn Heb “and in robbery do not place vain hope.” Here “robbery” stands by metonymy for the riches that can be gained by theft, as the next line of the verse indicates.

[62:10]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “[as for] wealth, when it bears fruit, do not set [your] heart [on it].”