Property: Text
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
"Text" is a predefined property that represents text of arbitrary length and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki. This property is pre-deployed (also known as special property) and comes with additional administrative privileges but can be used just like any other user-defined property.
P
As discussed in the grammar and phrase-level notes, the construct chain רוֹמֵי־קָשֶׁת adjectivally describes this group of Ephraimites and their characteristic actions. +
For the function of the wayyiqtol וַיִּשְׁכְּחוּ, see the note at v. 5. +
From the past perfect in v. 11b until v. 37b the reference time is that of the Wilderness Wanderings, so past in relation to the preceding discourse. (It recounts the ancestors' failures in the wilderness, which is prior to the event of the Ephraimites' failure in v. 9. The latter dominates syntactically up to this point.) The discourse from vv. 12-37b recounts precisely what they ""forgot"" (v. 11). +
Note that, where we have provided an elided verb, governed by the previous clause, when the preceding verb is a wayyiqtol, we have supplied a qatal (as here and vv. 27, 33, 42, 43, 46, 48, 61), and when the preceding verb is a yiqtol, we have supplied another yiqtol (as in vv. 45, 47). +
For the habitual reading of the yiqtol יְבַקַּ֣ע, see the TOB's ""Il fendait des rochers au désert."" Another possibility is modality of ability, since the agency of the splitting of the rock is unambiguously Moses in both Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, thus ""he could split rocks."" Modality of ability is picked up once again from הֲיוּכַל onwards in v. 19. A final possible interpretation is simply a prederite yiqtol, ""he split"" (see also vv. 26, 45, 47, 49, 50; cf. Ḥakham 1979, 45). Our preferred reading is the habitual aspect, supported by the plural ""rocks"" (cf. the use of piel, instead of qal, as in v. 13; Ḥakham 1979, 45; Penney 2023). Furthermore, as noted by Campbell (1979, 64-65), the splitting rocks for water is here presented as a positive event among the פֶלֶא which YHWH עָשָׂה (v. 12; cf. also v. 20's positive reflection), ""a gracious gift,"" so rhetorically and literarily independent from the single events of Exodus 17 or Numbers 20. In this case, ""The time interval during which the eventualities occur and their time reference relative to the present (speech time) are inferrable from the context"" (Khan, forthcoming, long yiqṭol, 3). +
The wayyiqtol has been judged to continue the tense-aspect-modality values of the preceding yiqtol, unless an obvious discourse-break is discerned, which arrives in v. 17, with the shift of grammatical subject. +
This is a unique qatal form of the elaborative quotative frame, most prototypically expressed by the wayyiqtol (see, e.g., Judg 11:30; 1 Sam 25:5: 1 Kgs 18:24; 21:4; 2 Kgs 1:2). In any case, its adverbial function as ""co-subordinate"" is quite clear. The ancient versions vary between providing a conjunction ""spoke... and said"" (LXX, Syr.) and rendering one verb of speech as adverbial (e.g., Hebr.: et loquentes contra Deum dicebant ""and speaking against God, they would say...""). +
On the the interpretation of wayyiqtol introducing a result to the preceding discourse, see Khan (forthcoming, Vayyiqṭol, 82-86); cf. Gen 12:19; 2 Sam 2:23 and v. 59b below. +
For the imperfective reading of the yiqtol יִשְׁטֹפוּ (though it could be interpreted as progressive), see the NASB's ""And streams were overflowing."" As noted by Bybee et al. (1994, 174), progressives are an early stage in the grammaticalization process of imperfectives, so here we may have an early attestation (cf. Gen 37:15-16). On the other hand, long yiqtol most prototypically communicates repeated perfective eventualities, not a temporally-unbound individual event (Khan, Long Yiqtol, 4). Our ingressive reading interprets the imperfecive aspect as providing salience only for the onset phase of the event. +
For discussion of the so-called preterite yiqtol here (so Ḥakham 1979, 48), see the note under v. 45. As analogous to the discourse-effect of the historical present in English, the lexical prominence brought about by the form may prime the following instance of both verbs נסע and נהג in v. 52. +
According to Fassberg (2019, §231), the variation of verb forms here represents an ""aspectual merismus."" The difficulty arises not only on account of the past and completed event signified by the yiqtol VP, but, indeed, the anterior reference time to the preceding event (cf. NIV: ""They ate till they were gorged— he had given them what they craved""; TOB: ""Ils mangèrent et se gavèrent: il avait accédé à leur désir""; cf. EÜ, NBS). This is one of the few occasions where TgPs and the Syr. will diverge morphologically from the MT's yiqtol (איתי להון; ܝܗܒ ܠܗܘܢ ""he brought to them""). Our preferred reading understands יָבִא as a preterite yiqtol, licensed by the other unambiguous instances in the psalm (see vv. 26, 45, 47, 49-50), probably as a circumstantial clause, reflecting the syntactic origins of long yiqtol as a preterite (see Isaksson 2024, 296-299). Nevertheless, a habitual reading of יָבִא is also possible: ""whenever he would %5Brepeatedly%5D bring them what they craved."" +
For the verbal alternation in this verse, see the notes in v. 58. The LXX and three revisers all render the verb יַנְחֵם as an aorist. With the pattern established throughout the rest of the psalm, the verb alternation, both with an intended past reference time, is preferred (cf. vv. 29, 36, 58). Alternatively, however, perhaps an initial reading of the yiqtol would indicate ongoing skillful leadership by the Davidic king. +
For the emendation of בְּ*תֹ֣ם* (MT: כְּתֹ֣ם), see the grammar notes. +
On the the interpretation of wayyiqtol introducing ""unordered addition"" and elaborative specification, see Khan (forthcoming, Vayyiqṭol, 58-60); cf. 2 Sam 12:8; 1 Kgs 18:13. See also vv. 5 and 44 above. It is quite commonly understood that the choosing of Judah, Zion and David were part of the same decisive act (see the commentaries). +
On the perfect reading, of the qatal יְסָדָהּ, ""he has established,"" see the ELB, ESV, EÜ, KJV, Luther2017, NASB, PDV, SG21, TOB, ZÜR. Alternatively, a past perfective interpretation is possible (see, e.g., NIV). Nevertheless, construal highlighting the present effects of this establishing seems preferable. +
The stative pointing of אָהֵֽב is unambiguous, since the verb could quite simply read אָהַב (see, e.g., Deut 4:37: וְתַ֗חַת כִּ֤י אָהַב֙ אֶת־אֲבֹתֶ֔יךָ וַיִּבְחַ֥ר בְּזַרְע֖וֹ אַחֲרָ֑יו), so which he loves is preferred over which he loved (CSB, CJB, KJV, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NIV, NJPS, PDV, SG21). +
On the interpretation of wayyiqtol introducing an adversative relationship to the preceding discourse, see Khan (forthcoming, Vayyiqṭol, 54-58). +
On the interpretation of wayyiqtol introducing an adversative relationship to the preceding discourse, see Khan (forthcoming, Vayyiqṭol, 54-58). +
On this form, see the lexical notes. +
On the interpretation of wayyiqtol introducing an inferential relationship to the preceding discourse, see Khan (forthcoming, Vayyiqṭol, 52-54). On the function of v. 65 as introducing a new discourse unit, see the exegetical issue, <a rel%3D"nofollow" class%3D"external free" href%3D"https://psalms.scriptura.org/w/The_Identity_of_the_"Adversaries"_in_Ps_78:66">https://psalms.scriptura.org/w/The_Identity_of_the_"Adversaries"_in_Ps_78:66</a>. +