Hmmm.
This then is what makes you the one whose say so becomes fact? Does the Psalm say anything about Bedouin sheep farmers or the Fulani? Is that possibly completely beside the point of the analogy being made? The focus there is water to drink and in your scenario no water is even provided, just avoided. And let's say they did come upon brackish water---is this not where the rod and the staff would "turn" the sheep away from it and lead them to the good water----which btw, seeings as sheep have a preference for still water and fast flowing and deep water is deadly should they fall in----would be still water? I am curious as to whether you have discovered the analogy and found it a great comfort in your life? Or do you still think this Psalm is about sheep and toxic water?
Could be.
I actually don't need to do that in order to determine what Psalm 23 is saying, and have it be a great comfort and peace, knowing this is who my Good Shepherd is, and didn't need to even when first I read it. I do not need Van Der Meer to give a pointless lesson on toxic water and the "best" rendering of "beside" in his opinion. I would consider it the worst rendering in this case as then the passage would read, "He leads me past still waters" and have no idea why He would do that. On the other hand His rod and staff would still be a comfort to me should I encounter toxic water. He would keep me from drinking it. It is something that really does not require the specificity of thinking about. But to each is own. Keep thinking about it and defending it until you get absolutely zero from the Psalm.
You jumped on a scholarly bandwagon when you used the water of Psalm 23 as one of your thin-translations. Thinking, I guess, that all that anyone else had ever thought about the Psalm or taken from it, was wrong. In so doing, you slanted the Psalm one direction that it was not going (yet) and removed some of what it was saying at that particular time (with those poetic and analogous phrases).That these scholars and translator supperceded all the intellect of ancient times and that if we were going to be absolutely, technically correct (which analogies and poetry are not meant to be, but rather to convey a concept or idea) we are to now see not peace and loving perfect provision that takes each individual into account, in the still waters, but rather dangers that we are kept from. Even though that aspect of God's care is put forth with the same sheep/shepherd analogy in the next verses. We need know neither the nature of sheep or the conditions of the Bedouin desert to extract the meaning and purpose of Psalm 23. There was no place for it in your examples of thin-translations.
The Psalm isn't speaking of geography and such. It is speaking as God as a Shepherd of His people and comparing to what a literal shepherd does for his flock. An analogy, not of literal terrain but of the heart of God towards His flock. Where the Pharisees were chastised for adhering to the letter of the Law never seeing the spirit of it, so too it is possible to focus on the letter of concepts and ideas and bypass the spirit of it. Place the emphasis and focus in the wrong place iow.
The Psalm is not about a literal place. It is about shepherds and their flocks as an analogy of God and His people.Sometimes historical setting is helpful is fully grasping a scripture---sometimes it is totally unnecessary. Sometimes differing translations of a word are helpful, sometimes they muddy the waters of the idea that is being presented. But if you wish to go with the meaning being better served by past toxic waters, there is no harm in it. And there is no need to try and place the same restriction of everyone as though they are ignorant if they do not do as you do.
No one is disputing that a good shepherd and a good cattle driver will keep the flock or herd from drinking toxic water.
