Laws, statutes, precepts, commands, ordinances, what is it with all this legal jargon and how should we parse it?

Currently in the process of some initial checks on my Non-Religious Bible Psalms project, I noticed some interesting parallels between Psalm 19 and Psalm 119. Apart from sharing a very similar number, we see first in Psalm 19:7-9 and then in more detail in Psalm 119 a whole array of legal terminology that is not easy to translate, especially if we want a reader to find it believable that anyone could find such a thing as an "ordinance" exciting or delightful.

One of the initial things that has had me puzzled is the order in which the Psalmist unpacks his message. Given that he starts in Psalm 19:7 with GOD's Torah, we might be permitted to think that he is going from big to little, but that is not always immediately clear. From the most overarching and society-directing to the individual minutia GOD's words/instructions/insights/instincts/lessons/judgements are fantastic?

This is the order the Psalmist takes it here:

1. TORAH, traditionally rendered "the law of the LORD" (7a)
2. EDOT, traditionally rendered "the statutes of the LORD" (7b)
3. PIQQUDIM, traditionally rendered "the precepts of the LORD" (8a)
4. MISWOT, traditionally rendered "the command[ment]s of the LORD" (8b)

[interlude on the YIRAT/fear of the LORD (9a)], then 

        5. MISHPATIM, traditionally rendered "the ordinances of the LORD" (9b)

(Later in Psalm 119 we will also have huqqim, dabar and imrah.)

So what is going on here, do we have our big-to-little? Or what other thought patterns can we discern? Torah is indeed the benchmark for the Hebrews and so it makes sense to begin here. Where commentators can go is then to say there is no need to think in terms of "big to small", because the Torah comprises all the following points anyway. If this were the case, then we might want to ask the question, how come all the following verses do not switch subject? Ie: The Torah of Yahweh is perfect... the Edut of the Torah are trustworthy... That is not what we see. Rather we see each legal item attached directly to Yahweh himself.

So how big is Number 2, EDOT? The English-favoured term, statutes, are pretty high up. Unlike the Torah, of which there is just one (as far as I am aware), God's whole legal framework for his healthy society, these are nationwide laws. So far so good, although there is a sense of 'warning' about EDOT that might be necessary to factor in for more meaningful translation.

Next, 3. PIQQUDIM. The translated term of "precepts" is a more local enactment of something higher. So yes, we do seem to observe a pattern of big-to-small.

4. MISWOT seems to betray the pattern, however, since we have spoken commands, often of divine origin. Maybe the betrayal is not so great, however. Remember what was said about how all the verses might point to the Torah after 7a? Well, just because MISWOT is usually a divine command does not mean that it should be higher up the pecking order especially because they are all directly linked to Yahweh himself. So the real transition that is happening is that we now move from something that was intended to be written as a written part of the legal structure of Yahweh's society to something that was intended to be recorded as a spoken clarification or a contextualised instruction from Yahweh, that would have future ramifications. So written to spoken could be seen as a progression in this sense.

Then we have the fear interjection, which I do not particularly find fitting here (sorry Mr. Psalmist!) as it seems to interrupt the flow. After that, the pattern is restored where we have our potential candidate for the most localised outworking of GOD's wonderful clarity for flourishing society, 5. MISHPATIM, "a judge's statement of what should have taken place in a particular case" (Wilson, NIV Application Commentary). It seems to me that the order is more or less intact, with the rather awkard interjection needing some consideration. Do we desire that translations contain awkward structure when the intention is for poetic beauty to reflect the beauty of the subject? I would suggest that at least for some translation purposes that the answer is in the negative.

So before we tackle a non-religious rendering of the passage, first we need to think about positioning of the fear clause. My suggestion would be to make it 11c. In the NIV this would read:

By them (all these laws and guidelines by God for his people) is your servant warned;

    in keeping them there is great reward

        [for] the fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever.

Although I was originally intent on reordering some of the other parts slightly, I believe we can maintain original "big-to-local" thought as follows:

7. a. LOVE’s way is like it,

Reviving the soul after a long cold night.

7. b. LOVE instincts in us can be trusted,

Making even the inexperienced among us seem like wise sages.

8. a. LOVE paths are bang on and lead to real joy in the community.

8. b. LOVE’s words are pure and literally light up our gaze.

9. b. LOVE insights are solid and consistently right.

Note that the "it" of 7.a. serves as a nice connector to the whole preceding section of God's wonderous creative order, the conclusion of which was the sun's gracious sharing of its life-giving heat as it journeys from horizon to the other.

Obviously, a lot more to be said, but I think that will have to do for today.