The Text and Meaning of Ps. 44:5: Difference between revisions

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 127: Line 127:
Based on the strength of the external evidence (MT, Targum, Symmachus, Jerome), the MT reading of אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה is preferred. While the internal evidences (e.g., more difficult reading, possible harmonization) are not conclusive, they provide a plausible explanation of how the variant readings of the LXX and Peshitta arose. Meanwhile, the conjectural emendation of אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה, while intriguing, lacks external support.
Based on the strength of the external evidence (MT, Targum, Symmachus, Jerome), the MT reading of אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה is preferred. While the internal evidences (e.g., more difficult reading, possible harmonization) are not conclusive, they provide a plausible explanation of how the variant readings of the LXX and Peshitta arose. Meanwhile, the conjectural emendation of אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה, while intriguing, lacks external support.


The significance of this reading can be seen in its impact on the poetic structure and unity of Ps 44. Rather than seeing vv. 5–9 as a later insertion between the victory of vv. 1–4 and the distress of vv. 10–17 (contra Briggs and Briggs 1907, 378), the reader can discern a bridging of these seemingly disparate sections through the psalmist's use of the imperative צַוֵּה. The psalmist is not only recounting God's past victories for the purposes of praise, but also—and perhaps more urgently—as a basis for his current pleas for help. The imperative of v. 5 highlights a discourse peak in the first stanza of the psalm, and foreshadows the multiple supplications in the fourth stanza (see Poetic Structure).
The significance of this reading can be seen in its impact on the poetic structure and unity of Ps 44. Rather than seeing vv. 5–9 as a later insertion between the victory of vv. 1–4 and the distress of vv. 10–17 (contra Briggs and Briggs 1907, 378), the reader can discern a bridging of these seemingly disparate sections through the psalmist's use of the imperative צַוֵּה. The psalmist is not only recounting God's past victories for the purposes of praise, but also—and perhaps more urgently—as a basis for his current pleas for help. The imperative of v. 5 highlights a discourse peak in the first stanza of the psalm and foreshadows the multiple supplications in the fourth stanza (see Poetic Structure).


=Research=
=Research=

Revision as of 14:43, 14 August 2024

Introduction

There is a discrepancy between the MT and ancient versions as to the text of Ps 44:5. The MT presents the text as follows:

  • אַתָּה־ה֣וּא מַלְכִּ֣י אֱלֹהִ֑ים צַ֝וֵּ֗ה יְשׁוּע֥וֹת יַעֲקֹֽב׃
  • "You are my king, O God; decree victories for Jacob!" (JPS 1985)

In the MT, the vocative אֱלֹהִים is followed by an imperative צַוֵּה. On the other hand, the LXX presents the following translation:

  • σὺ εἶ αὐτὸς ὁ βασιλεύς μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου ὁ ἐντελλόμενος τὰς σωτηρίας Ἰακώβ
  • "You are my very King and my God, he who commands acts of deliverance for Iakob" (NETS)

This translation (also reflected in the Syriac Peshitta), presupposes the participial form מְצַוֶּה instead of צַוֵּה, as well as the suffixed form אֱלֹהָי in place of the MT's אֱלֹהִים.

It is possible to explain these differences on the basis of a misplaced mem (i.e., אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה [MT] vs. אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּה [LXX]). Another option would be to presuppose an original text of אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה, which then underwent a scribal error whereby one of the two mems was accidentally dropped (haplography). The differences between the MT and LXX could then be explained as attempts to place the remaining mem (CTAT, 261).

Argument Maps

MT Reading: אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה (preferred)

Several translations, both ancient and modern, reflect the MT reading of אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה in v. 5. This reading features the imperative form of צַוֵּה ("command!"), and suggests a vocative rendering for אֱלֹהִים. Screenshot 2024-07-05 at 6.11.11 PM.png

The arguments for the MT reading are presented below.


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===
[אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה]: The preferred text of v. 5 reads אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה.
 - <Contextual difficulty>: Given the preponderence of indicative clauses in vv. 2–23, the imperative form צַוֵּה would seem to interrupt the flow of the immediate context (Ehrlich 1905, 98 :C:). #dispreferred
  <_ <More difficult reading>
  <_ <Discourse peak>
 - <"Impossible" imperative>: Kraus characterizes the imperative as "impossible in this position" (Kraus 1988, 444), presumably referring to its placement after a vocative.#dispreferred
  - <Imperatives can follow vocatives>: Elsewhere in the Psalter, the imperative is found following a vocative.
   + [Imperatives following vocatives]: See Pss 2:10; 5:9; 20:10; 22:24; 41:5, 11; 47:2; 54:4; 58:7; 68:33; 71:4; 80:2, 4, 8, 15, 20; 83:14; 84:9; 115:9–11; 120:2; 130:2; 144:5.
 + <Manuscript support>: The MT reading is represented by the Leningrad, Aleppo, and Sassoon codices.
 + <Ancient version support>: The MT reading is supported by the Targum, Symmachus, and Jerome.
 + <Discourse peak>: As v. 5 functions as a transition point in the first stanza of Ps 44 (see Poetic Structure), the use of the imperative could mark the emotional peak of the stanza, and set the stage for the remainder of the psalm.
 + <More difficult reading>: In general, when dealing with two or more variants, the more difficult reading is preferred (*lectio difficilior*), since a scribe would be more likely to simplify and clarify a text, rather than make it more difficult (Brotzman 1994, 128 :M:).
  + <Harmonization of similar passages>: The parallel syntactic construction of Ps 74:12 suggests that the participle would be expected, rather than the imperative (so CTAT, 261 :M:; cf. Kraus 1988, 444 :C:). The participial reading could have arisen from a scribe or translator attempting to assimilate the MT reading to that of Ps 74:12 (cf. Tov 2022, 403 :M:).
   + [Parallel syntax in Ps 74:12]: Ps 74:12 utilizes the participle (פֹּעֵל): וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃
  <_ <Simple scribal errors>: The principle of *lectio difficilior* does not account for simple scribal errors, which will often create a  difficult reading (Tov 2022, 401 :M:). #dispreferred


Argument Mapn0אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּהThe preferred text of v. 5 reads אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה.n1Imperatives following vocativesSee Pss 2:10; 5:9; 20:10; 22:24; 41:5, 11; 47:2; 54:4; 58:7; 68:33; 71:4; 80:2, 4, 8, 15, 20; 83:14; 84:9; 115:9–11; 120:2; 130:2; 144:5.n7Imperatives can follow vocativesElsewhere in the Psalter, the imperative is found following a vocative.n1->n7n2Parallel syntax in Ps 74:12Ps 74:12 utilizes the participle (פֹּעֵל): וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃n10Harmonization of similar passagesThe parallel syntactic construction of Ps 74:12 suggests that the participle would be expected, rather than the imperative (so CTAT, 261 🄼; cf. Kraus 1988, 444 🄲). The participial reading could have arisen from a scribe or translator attempting to assimilate the MT reading to that of Ps 74:12 (cf. Tov 2022, 403 🄼).n2->n10n3Contextual difficultyGiven the preponderence of indicative clauses in vv. 2–23, the imperative form צַוֵּה would seem to interrupt the flow of the immediate context (Ehrlich 1905, 98 🄲). n3->n0n4More difficult readingIn general, when dealing with two or more variants, the more difficult reading is preferred (lectio difficilior ), since a scribe would be more likely to simplify and clarify a text, rather than make it more difficult (Brotzman 1994, 128 🄼).n4->n0n4->n3n5Discourse peakAs v. 5 functions as a transition point in the first stanza of Ps 44 (see Poetic Structure), the use of the imperative could mark the emotional peak of the stanza, and set the stage for the remainder of the psalm.n5->n0n5->n3n6"Impossible" imperativeKraus characterizes the imperative as "impossible in this position" (Kraus 1988, 444), presumably referring to its placement after a vocative.n6->n0n7->n6n8Manuscript supportThe MT reading is represented by the Leningrad, Aleppo, and Sassoon codices.n8->n0n9Ancient version supportThe MT reading is supported by the Targum, Symmachus, and Jerome.n9->n0n10->n4n11Simple scribal errorsThe principle of lectio difficilior does not account for simple scribal errors, which will often create a difficult reading (Tov 2022, 401 🄼). n11->n4


LXX Reading: אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּה

Several translations (ancient and modern) adopt the rendering of the LXX. The LXX translation suggests a reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage that featured אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּה in v. 5. Taken in parallel with the preceding מַלְכִּי, this would suggest that אֱלֹהָי is functioning appositionally (e.g., "my king, my God"). Furthermore, the participle מְצַוֶּה would likely introduce an asyndetic relative clause (e.g., "[my God] who commands..."). Ps 045.05 LXX Grammar.png

The arguments for this reading are outlined below.


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===
[אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּה]: The preferred text of v. 5 reads אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּה. #dispreferred
 + <Less difficult reading>: Given the preponderence of indicative clauses in vv. 2–23, the participle מְצַוֶּה would better fit the context than the imperative צַוֵּה (Ehrlich 1905, 98 :C:). #dispreferred
  <_ <More difficult reading>
 + <Parallel syntax>: The parallel syntactic construction of Ps 74:12 suggests that the participle would be expected, rather than the imperative (so CTAT, 261 :M:). #dispreferred
  + [Parallel syntax in Ps 74:12]: Ps 74:12 utilizes the participle (פֹּעֵל): וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃#dispreferred
 + <Ancient version support>: The participial reading is supported by the LXX, Aquila, and Syriac Peshitta. #dispreferred
 - <More difficult reading>: In general, when dealing with two or more variants, the more difficult reading is preferred (*lectio difficilior*), since a scribe would be more likely to simplify and clarify a text, rather than make it more difficult (Brotzman 1994, 128 :M:).
  <_ <Simple scribal errors>: The principle of *lectio difficilior* does not account for simple scribal errors, which will often create a  difficult reading (Tov 2022, 401 :M:). #dispreferred


Argument Mapn0אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּהThe preferred text of v. 5 reads אֱלֹהָי מְצַוֶּה. n1Parallel syntax in Ps 74:12Ps 74:12 utilizes the participle (פֹּעֵל): וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃n4Parallel syntaxThe parallel syntactic construction of Ps 74:12 suggests that the participle would be expected, rather than the imperative (so CTAT, 261 🄼). n1->n4n2Less difficult readingGiven the preponderence of indicative clauses in vv. 2–23, the participle מְצַוֶּה would better fit the context than the imperative צַוֵּה (Ehrlich 1905, 98 🄲). n2->n0n3More difficult readingIn general, when dealing with two or more variants, the more difficult reading is preferred (lectio difficilior ), since a scribe would be more likely to simplify and clarify a text, rather than make it more difficult (Brotzman 1994, 128 🄼).n3->n0n3->n2n4->n0n5Ancient version supportThe participial reading is supported by the LXX, Aquila, and Syriac Peshitta. n5->n0n6Simple scribal errorsThe principle of lectio difficilior does not account for simple scribal errors, which will often create a difficult reading (Tov 2022, 401 🄼). n6->n3


Emended Reading: אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה

Another alternative to this text-critical issue is to propose an emended reading of אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה in verse 5. In this reading, אֱלֹהִים could be viewed as a vocative, while מְצַוֶּה introduces an asyndetic relative clause (GNB, BDS). Alternatively, both אֱלֹהִים and מְצַוֶּה could be understood as introducing relative clauses (so CTAT, 261):[1] Screenshot 2024-07-05 at 10.45.24 PM.png

The arguments for this view are presented below.


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===
[אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה]: The text of v. 5 should be emended to אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה. #dispreferred
 - <No manuscript or versional support>: This reading is not supported by any known Hebrew manuscripts or ancient translations.
 + <Parallel syntax>: The parallel syntactic construction of Ps 74:12 features both a non-suffixed אֱלֹהִים and participial פֹּעֵל (CTAT, 261 :M:). #dispreferred
  + [Parallel syntax in Ps 74:12]: וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃#dispreferred
 + <Haplography>: If the text of v. 5 originally featured אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה, then the two instances of the letter *mem* could have resulted in the scribal error of haplography, whereby one of the identical letters was accidentally omitted during copying (Tov 2022, 280 :M:). #dispreferred
  <_ <Final vs. non-final mem>: The final *mem* of אֱלֹהִים would be less likely to be confused with the non-final *mem* of מְצַוֶּה.
   <_ <Final forms a later development>: The distinction between final and non-final forms of *mem* would not have applied to biblical scrolls prior to the Persian period. Furthermore, the application of the final forms of letters was not always consistent (Tov 2001, 210 :M:). #dispreferred


Argument Mapn0אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּהThe text of v. 5 should be emended to אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה. n1Parallel syntax in Ps 74:12וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃n3Parallel syntaxThe parallel syntactic construction of Ps 74:12 features both a non-suffixed אֱלֹהִים and participial פֹּעֵל (CTAT, 261 🄼). n1->n3n2No manuscript or versional supportThis reading is not supported by any known Hebrew manuscripts or ancient translations.n2->n0n3->n0n4HaplographyIf the text of v. 5 originally featured אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה, then the two instances of the letter mem  could have resulted in the scribal error of haplography, whereby one of the identical letters was accidentally omitted during copying (Tov 2022, 280 🄼). n4->n0n5Final vs. non-final memThe final mem  of אֱלֹהִים would be less likely to be confused with the non-final mem  of מְצַוֶּה.n5->n4n6Final forms a later developmentThe distinction between final and non-final forms of mem  would not have applied to biblical scrolls prior to the Persian period. Furthermore, the application of the final forms of letters was not always consistent (Tov 2001, 210 🄼). n6->n5


Conclusion

Based on the strength of the external evidence (MT, Targum, Symmachus, Jerome), the MT reading of אֱלֹהִים צַוֵּה is preferred. While the internal evidences (e.g., more difficult reading, possible harmonization) are not conclusive, they provide a plausible explanation of how the variant readings of the LXX and Peshitta arose. Meanwhile, the conjectural emendation of אֱלֹהִים מְצַוֶּה, while intriguing, lacks external support.

The significance of this reading can be seen in its impact on the poetic structure and unity of Ps 44. Rather than seeing vv. 5–9 as a later insertion between the victory of vv. 1–4 and the distress of vv. 10–17 (contra Briggs and Briggs 1907, 378), the reader can discern a bridging of these seemingly disparate sections through the psalmist's use of the imperative צַוֵּה. The psalmist is not only recounting God's past victories for the purposes of praise, but also—and perhaps more urgently—as a basis for his current pleas for help. The imperative of v. 5 highlights a discourse peak in the first stanza of the psalm and foreshadows the multiple supplications in the fourth stanza (see Poetic Structure).

Research

Translations

Ancient

  • LXX: σὺ εἶ αὐτὸς ὁ βασιλεύς μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου ὁ ἐντελλόμενος τὰς σωτηρίας Ἰακώβ
    • "You are my very King and my God, he who commands acts of deliverance for Iakob" (NETS)
  • Aquila: σὺ εἶ αὐτὸς ὁ βασιλεύς μου, θεέ μου ὁ ἐντελλόμενος τὰς σωτηρίας Ἰακώβ
  • Symmachus: σὺ εἶ βασιλεύς μου, ὁ θεός. ἔντειλαι περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας Ἰακώβ
  • Targum: אנת הוא מלכי אלהא בעידנא הדא פקיד פורקנות דבית יעקב׃
    • "You are my king, O God; at this[2] time command the deliverance of the house of Jacob" (Stec)
  • Peshitta: ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܡܠܟܝ܂ ܕܦܩܕܬ ‍ܥܠ ܦܘܪܩܢܗ ܕܝܥܩܘܒ܂
    • "You are God, my king, who has given an order concerning the salvation of Jacob" (Taylor)
  • Jerome (iuxta Hebraeos): tu es rex meus Deus praecipe pro salutibus Iacob

Modern

MT Reading: אֱלֹהִים (vocative) + צַוֵּה (imperative)

  • "You are my King, O God; ordain salvation for Jacob!" (ESV)
  • "You are my King, God; Command victories for Jacob" (NASB)
  • "You are my king, O God! Decree Jacob's deliverance!" (NET)
  • "You are my king, O God; decree victories for Jacob!" (JPS 1985)
  • "God, you are my King; command victory for Jacob" (REB)
  • "Du bist mein König, o Gott! So gib doch erneut Befehl zur Rettung Israels!" (NGÜ)
  • "Du selbst bist mein König, Gott; gebiete die Rettungen Jakobs!" (ELB)
  • "Du bist es, mein König, Gott! Gebiete rettende Taten für Jakob!" (EÜ)
  • "Du allein bist mein König, Gott, sende deine Hilfe für Jakob" (ZÜR)
  • "O Dieu, toi qui es mon roi, commande, et Jacob vaincra[3]" (TOB)
  • "C'est toi qui es mon roi, ô Dieu : ordonne le salut de Jacob !" (NBS)
  • "C'est toi qui es mon roi, ô Dieu : Ordonne le salut de Jacob !" (NVSR)
  • "O Dieu, tu es mon roi: ordonne la délivrance de Jacob!" (S21)
  • "Tú, Dios, eres mi rey; ¡manda salvación a Jacob!" (RVR95)
  • "Solo tú eres mi Rey y mi Dios. ¡Decreta las victorias de Jacob!" (NVI)[4]
  • "Tú eres mi Rey y mi Elohim. ¡Ordena la salvación de Jacob!" (BTX4)[5]

LXX Reading: אֱלֹהָי (appositive) + מְצַוֶּה (participle)

  • "You are my King and my God, who decrees victories for Jacob" (NIV)
  • "You are my King, my God, who ordains victories for Jacob" (CSB)
  • "You are my king, my God, who decreed Jacob's victories" (NJB)
  • "You are my King and my God; you command victories for Jacob" (NRSV)
  • "You are my King and my God. You command victories for Israel" (NLT)
  • "You are my God and King, and you give victory to the people of Jacob" (CEV)
  • "You are my king and my God; you give victory to your people" (GNT)
  • "Du bist es, mein König und mein Gott, der du Jakob Hilfe verheißest" (Luther 2017)
  • "Du bist mein Gott und mein König. Auf deinen Befehl erringt Israel den Sieg[6]" (HFA)
  • "Mon Dieu, c’est toi qui es mon roi, c’est toi qui décides des victoires de ton peuple" (PDV)
  • "C'est toi, mon roi, mon Dieu, qui décides les victoires de ton peuple[7]" (NFC)
  • "¡Mi Rey! ¡Mi Dios! Tú diste las victorias a tu pueblo" (DHH)

Emended Reading: אֱלֹהִים (vocative) + מְצַוֶּה (participle)

  • "Du, Gott, bist unser König, du gibst[8] den Nachkommen Jakobs den Sieg" (GNB)
  • "C’est toi, ô Dieu, qui es mon roi et qui décides le salut de Jacob[9]" (BDS)

Secondary Literature

Alonso Schökel, Luis, and Cecilia Carniti. 1992. Salmos I (Salmos 1–72): Traducción, Introducciones y Comentario. Navarra: Verbo Divino.
Baethgen, Friedrich. 1904. Die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Brotzman, Ellis R. 1994. Old Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Craigie, Peter. 2004. Psalms 1–50. 2nd ed. WBC 19. Nashville: Nelson.
Dahood, Mitchell. 1966. Psalms I: 1–50. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
deClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. 2014. The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ehrlich, Arnold B. 1905. Die Psalmen. Berlin: Verlag Von M. Poppelauer.
Goldingay, John. 2007. Psalms. Vol. 2. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Kittel, Rudolf. 1922. Die Psalmen. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1988. Psalms 1–59. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Ausburg.
Tov, Emanuel. 2022. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 4th edition. Minneapolis: Fortress.
VanGemeren, Willem A. 2008. “Psalms.” REBC 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

References

44:5

  1. ↑ The following grammatical diagram is based on Barthélemy's proposed translation: "C’est toi, mon roi, qui es Dieu, qui décides les victoires de Jacob" (CTAT, 261).
  2. ↑ Apparatus Note: "hd’; M hhy’, 'that.'"
  3. ↑ Translation note: "Litt. ordonne les victoires de Jacob. Versions : qui décidais les victoires de Jacob."
  4. ↑ It is unclear whether the possessive mi Dios represents אֱלֹהָי from the LXX reading, or is simply supplied contextually. The imperative ¡Decreta! aligns with the MT reading, however.
  5. ↑ It is unclear whether the possessive mi Elohim represents אֱלֹהָי from the LXX reading, or is simply supplied contextually. The imperative ¡Ordena! aligns with the MT reading, however.
  6. ↑ Translation note: "Oder: Gib doch den Befehl zu Israels Rettung!"
  7. ↑ Translation note: "On peut comprendre aussi Dieu, mon roi, décide des victoires de ton peuple !"
  8. ↑ Translation note: "'du gibst:' mit G; H 'gib.'"
  9. ↑ Translation note: "Autre traduction : et qui fais triompher Jacob. Les anciennes versions grecque et syriaque ont lu : tu es mon roi, ô Dieu : ordonne le salut pour Jacob."