Talk:Psalm 42

11 or 12 verses?
I've noticed some English translations including the KJV and the NIV only have 11 verses for this chapter instead of 12. It seems like they skipped the first verse. Is this common in Bible translation or is there a specific reason hey might have done this for this chapter? Rastanarcharismarx (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to be common for the KJV to skip the first verse of the original Hebrew text. I'm not sure why. Perhaps can enlighten us here. Yoninah (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I just observe the same about the two versions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first 'verse' isn't really a verse at all, but (to me) a dedication. Steepleman (t) 10:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in the Hebrew original, it is considered a verse. Often it tells a lot about the theme of the psalm; Rashi and other classic commentators comment on the differences between the "ten types of song" exemplified in the designation at the beginning of the psalm (tehillah, mizmor, maskil, shir, etc.) and how the name of the musical instruments sometimes mentioned in the first verse sheds meaning on the nature of the psalm. Yoninah (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

New Testament Use
The following was added: "*Verse 5 is quoted in Matthew ; Mark . - citing"

Problems: no context is given, the verse seems 6 rather than 5, the content is not equal, just similar, and the source should be given in Wikisource, not bibleverse (external). I commented it out for now, but it could easily be restored, fixing the problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this correction proposal below. JohnThorne (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Septuagint rendering of some words in verse 5 (in English bible numbering; verse 6 in Hebrew bible numbering), ἵνα τί περίλυπος εἶ, ἡ ψυχή , shows close resemblance to the words of Jesus during the Agony in the Garden as recorded in Matthew or Mark  :  περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου.


 * I like that, and you don't even need to use the Greek letters. Instead of reflecting the different verse counting, I'd just repeat the line in question, and compare to the English of the New Testament. "Agony in the Garden" is the key, providing context! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Incipits
The issue of incipits is one that encompasses all of the psalm pages, not just this one. The problem is that every translation of a psalm will often create a new incipit. Listing all of these is not practical in the lead, but I feel that the major ones should be included. I question whether Tate and Brady's psalm translations are that widespread or important specifically, to deserve recognition in the lead. In my opinion, the major ones for the purposes of incipits at least are the KJV, Coverdale's BCP and the Vulgate, i.e. the Psalterium Gallicanum or Versio Gallicana. The BCP and Vulgate incipits are listed here: http://www1.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Psalm. Steepleman (t) 08:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You are right, but more important than how prominent a bible translation is seems to be how that psalm is known (common name), and Palestrina's Sicut cervus is one of the best-known motets, ever. Redirects can be bold, but not all have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Originally combined with Psalm 43?
There are numerous sources which say "some ancient Hebrew manuscripts have this Psalm combined with Psalm 42". While perhaps this view is disputed and does not belong in the lead section of the article, it might be worth a mention somewhere. Which section could it fit best in? Jel3456 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the section "Background and themes". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)