Psalm 115:5-7

Earlier this month, I read Psalm 115, and after looking up the original Hebrew, I discovered that it has the same sort of construction as Psalm 135, which I wrote about a couple months ago.  Here are verses 5-7 in the ESV:

5 They [the idols of the nations] have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.  6 They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell.  7 They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat.

In the Hebrew, the repeated construction is "mouth to them," "eyes to them," and so on:

פֶּֽה־לָהֶם וְלֹא יְדַבֵּרוּ עֵינַיִם לָהֶם וְלֹא יִרְאֽוּ׃

אָזְנַיִם לָהֶם וְלֹא יִשְׁמָעוּ אַף לָהֶם וְלֹא יְרִיחֽוּן׃

Verse 7 is a bit different, though; here, there are pronominal suffixes on "hands" and "feet":

יְדֵיהֶם ׀ וְלֹא יְמִישׁוּן רַגְלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְהַלֵּכוּ לֹֽא־יֶהְגּוּ בִּגְרוֹנָֽם׃

In both constructions, the idols' possession of these body parts is described without using any verbs, and consequently, the only verbs in these verses are the negated actions that the idols cannot perform.  They "do not speak," "do not see," and so on.  Like the lifeless idols themselves, there is only inactivity in these verses.

Genesis 3:12

Earlier this month, I read Genesis 3 and realized the significance of the pleonasm in verse 12:  "The man said, 'The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.'"  This is also in the Hebrew:

וַיֹּאמֶר הָֽאָדָם הָֽאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי הִוא נָֽתְנָה־לִּי מִן־הָעֵץ וָאֹכֵֽל׃

Adam is trying to shift the blame away from himself and onto Eve, and this unnecessary pronoun in his explanation is an-other tactic he uses to try to divert God's attention.

Ecclesiastes 3:20

A couple weeks ago, I lookt up Ecclesiastes 3:20:  "All go to one place.  All are from the dust, and to dust all return" [ESV].  The second half has a chiastic structure:

All are

from the dust,

and to dust

all return.

To some degree, this mirrors the "return[ing]" mentioned in the verse itself.  It's a bit inverted in relation to the meaning, though; the clause starts and ends with "all," but it's "to dust" (the middle element in the chiasm) that "all return."

The NIV translation is similar ("all come from dust, and to dust all return"), but this structure isn't present in the Hebrew:

הַכֹּל הָיָה מִן־הֶֽעָפָר וְהַכֹּל שָׁב אֶל־הֶעָפָֽר

It's more prosaic:  "All are from the dust, and all return to the dust."

Psalm 126:5

Last month, I fell behind in watching Worship Anew.  While watching the program from 17 December (the third Sunday in Advent) last week, I was following along in the Latin Vulgate and noticed yet an-other chiastic structure highlighting opposites, this time in Psalm 126:5:  "qui seminant in lacrimis in exultatione metent."  This is the same basic word order as the original Hebrew, too:

הַזֹּרְעִים בְּדִמְעָה בְּרִנָּה יִקְצֹֽרוּ׃.

In the ESV, this is translated as "Those who sow in tears shall reap with shouts of joy!" but in the original word order, it's more like "Those who sow in tears in shouts of joy will reap."