חֶסֶד in Psalm 136: kindness or steadfast love?
A student translating Psalm 136’s refrain כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ renders it 'for his kindness endures forever.' A classmate prefers 'for his steadfast love endures forever.' The teacher supplies two collocations: שׁוֹמֵר הַבְּרִית וְהַחֶסֶד ('keeping covenant and hesed') and חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת ('hesed and faithfulness'). The student objects that 'steadfast love' is archaic and that 'kindness' is plain English. The class must decide how lexical context and genre affect the gloss, and whether the same English word should be used every time חסד appears.
1. Using the supplied collocations, evaluate 'kindness' and 'steadfast love' as glosses for חֶסֶד in Psalm 136.
Read the worked answer
Lexical range. חֶסֶד can denote generosity, mercy, favor, or loyal covenantal love depending on context. The supplied collocations pull toward relational loyalty: 'keeping covenant and hesed' pairs חסד with covenant fidelity, and 'hesed and faithfulness' pairs it with reliability. Evaluation. 'Kindness' is not wrong, but it can suggest a mood or isolated act and underdetermines durability. 'Steadfast love' better captures the loyal, enduring dimension, especially in a refrain celebrating YHWH’s enduring rule. Caveat. The gloss should not become mechanical: in a mundane context 'favor' or 'kindness' may be better. In Psalm 136, however, the covenant and liturgical setting favors 'steadfast love' or 'loyal love', with a footnote on the lexical range.
2. What principle should guide whether to use one consistent English gloss? Apply it to the refrain.
Read the worked answer
Consistency should operate at the level of the Hebrew lemma, not necessarily at the level of a single English word. A translator asks what the word is doing in each collocation and genre. In Psalm 136 the refrain is liturgical and theological: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ grounds praise in YHWH’s enduring loyal love. Using 'kindness' each time would be consistent but may flatten the covenantal force. Using 'steadfast love' in the refrain and 'kindness' or 'favor' elsewhere is defensible if the commentary explains the decision. The controlling principle is contextual sense plus transparency about lexical range, not etymological derivation or a one-word gloss policy.