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
'''vv. 12-13''' – Our preferred diagram reflects the LXX against the MT, the former of which reads
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτῷ θυγατέρες Τύρου ἐν δώροις,
τὸ πρόσωπόν σου λιτανεύσουσιν οἱ πλούσιοι τοῦ λαοῦ
"And daughters of Tyre will do obeisance to him with gifts;
your face the rich of the people will entreat." (NETS)
To reflect this reading in Hebrew, two emendations are necessary from the MT. In the first place, the feminine singular וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִי "and bow down" is emended to the plural הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ. This change could have come about due to the graphic similarity between ''yod'' and ''waw'' (or possibily to harmonize the imperative with the previous imperatives of v. 11).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"' +
'''v. 13''' – Our preferred reading understands the singular form בַֽת־צֹ֨ר as a collective, referring to the residents of Tyre,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' such that it can head a plural verb as the preceding (emended) וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ (LXX: καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτῷ θυγατέρες Τύρου ἐν δώροις "And daughters of Tyre will do obeisance to him with gifts," NETS). See the many references of בַּת + place name to refer to the citizens thereof throughout the Bible (בַּת צִיּוֹן "daughter of Zion," בַּת יְהוּדָה "daughter of Judah," and בַּת מִצְרָיִם "daughter of Egypt," among others). +
'''v. 14''' – Due to a misunderstanding of the rare word כְּבוּדָּה (found only here, Judg 18:21 and Ezek 23:41), the LXX seems to have read כְּבוֹדָהּ with the ''mappiq'' in the final ''he'' as πᾶσα ἡ δόξα αὐτῆς "all her glory." The resulting syntax is slightly awkward, however, requiring the apposition between "her" and "the king's daughter": πᾶσα ἡ δόξα αὐτῆς θυγατρὸς βασιλέως "all her glory, %5Bthat of%5D the daughter of the king."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Other modern translations seem to understand the form as כָּבְדָה, "glorious" as a feminine singular adjective. Not only can this not be derived from the consonantal Hebrew text (since the MT's form unambiguously contains a ''waw'' in כְּבוּדָּ֣ה), but it requires reading the quantifier כֹּל as a qualitative intensifier: "All glorious is the princess" (NIV). Our preferred reading, then, of the noun phrase is that of a nominal adverb. +
'''v. 14''' – The LXX seems to have read לְבוּשָֽׁהּ without the mappiq, as the passive participle לְבוּשָׁה "dressed" περιβεβλημένη. It also reads the first word of v. 15, לִרְקָמוֹת֮, as further modifying this participle in the same sentence: ἐν κροσσωτοῖς χρυσοῖς περιβεβλημένη πεποικιλμένη "decked out with golden tassels, in many colors." This phrase is also added verbatim to the end of v. 10, however, so the LXX is questionable here.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' +
'''v. 15''' – As shown in the alternative diagram, the LXX reads בְּתוּל֣וֹת אַ֭חֲרֶיהָ as the grammatical subject of תּוּבַ֪ל. The number disagreement is not unheard of, especially in passive constructions. Nevertheless, the Masoretic accents (especially the ''ole veyored'' as the strongest disjunctive accents over לַ֫מֶּ֥לֶךְ) support our preferred clause division. +
'''v. 17''' – For the alternative interpretation of the second clause as an asyndetic relative clause, see the NKJV: "Instead of Your fathers shall be Your sons, '''Whom''' You shall make princes in all the earth." +
'''v. 17''' – The Peshitta renders the second person ''yiqtol'' תְּשִׁיתֵ֥מוֹ with the imperative ܥܒܶܕ "make." This could be an interpretation of agent-oriented modality on the part of the addressee, the king, or the translator's text may simply have read שִׁיתֵמוֹ, only missing the תְּ. +
V. 1 The Grammatical Relationship Between מזמור and שיר.
Among those translations that do not construe מזמור as in construct with שיר. The main difficulty is that any semantics that one option can express, the other can as well. Thus whichever construction prototypically expresses the intended semantics will be preferred.
Options 1&3 - Apposition ('A psalm—A shīr') OR independent words.
* NET, ELBBK, NGU2011; BDS; LSG;
* The grammatical interpretations behind these translations are not clear one way or the other, since both options would generally appear the same in the surface, depending on the graphemic punctuation used in that translation.
Option 2 - Construct ('A psalm of shīr)
* SCH2000 ('Ein Psalmlied'); ELBBK footnote ('eig. ein Lied-Psalm').
We have chosen to diagram them as independent words and not as modifying one another in any way. Consider the following:
* The terms שׁיר and מִזְמוֹר can appear in either order, מִזְמ֥וֹר שִֽׁיר as is the case here (cf. 67:1; 87:1; 92:1), or שִׁיר מִזְמוֹר (e.g., 48:1; 66:1; 83:1; 88:1). If one term further determined the other, we would not expect such even distribution between the two word orders. Additionally the terms can take non-adjacent positions within superscriptions, e.g., לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ מִזְמ֗וֹר לְדָוִ֥ד שִֽׁיר׃ (Psa 65:1; cf 75:1; 76:1)
* The indication of use accompanies the co-occurrence of both words twice in the Psalter ( מִזְמ֡וֹר שִׁיר־חֲנֻכַּ֖ת הַבַּ֣יִת לְדָוִֽד׃‘A mizmor; The shīr of the celebration of the house; by David’ %5BPsa 30:1%5D; מִזְמ֥וֹר שִׁ֗יר לְי֣וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃ ‘A mizmor; A shīr for the day of the Sabbath’ %5BPsa 92:1%5D'). In both instances, the occasion seems to (syntactically) modify shīr, not mizmor, suggesting that they are completely separate semantic domains.
* When the co-occurrence of both terms is accompanied by indication of authorship, that element can appear anywhere among/between the two words—after (שִׁ֥יר מִ֝זְמוֹר לִבְנֵי־קֹֽרַח %5BPsa 48:1%5D), in between (מִזְמ֗וֹר לְדָוִ֥ד שִֽׁיר %5BPsa. 65:1%5D), or before (לִבְנֵי־קֹ֭רַח מִזְמ֣וֹר שִׁ֑יר %5BPsa 87:1%5D). This again suggests that each term adds its own type of information to the superscription, rather than modifies one another.
''''A psalm of David''''?
A number of translations reflect a grammatical analysis whereby the word מִזְמ֥וֹר is the first member of a construct phrase and לְדָוִ֗ד is the second, despite the fact that the word order is reversed viz., something like,‘A song of David’ (e.g., KJV; NKJV; NASB; HCSB; ASV; JPS1917; WEB; DELUT; BCC1923; BDS; LBLA; RVR95; NVI). A few other translation simply have something like ‘of/for David’ (e.g., NIV; ELBBK; SCH2000; LSG).
* The word מִזְמוֹר follows the word דָוִד seven times in scripture. In X of those instances, the two area separated by a disjunctive accent (24:1; 68:1; 101:1; 110:1) while in the other three cases the two are joined prosodically by a conjunctive accent (40:1; 109:1; 139:1)
* Syntactically 'A song of David' does not work. There is not one example in BH of the head noun preceding the construct noun. According to GKC (§129c): ‘Such a case as לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר (Ps 24:1, &c.) is not to be regarded as a transposition, but מִזְמוֹר is used epexegetically for the general term omitted before לְדָוִד (as it were, a poem of David, a psalm).’
* τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμὸς ᾠδῆς (LXX) 'pertaining to Dauid. A psalm. of an Ode’ (NETS); τῷ νικοποιῷ τοῦ Δαυὶδ μελῴδημα ᾄσματος (Aquilla), translation ambiguous although the last two members certainly form one phrase 'A melody of lyric’ (cf. the Syro-Hexapla ܡܙܡܘܪܐ ܕܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ.
Most likely there is an elided element before לדוד; cf. וַיְהִ֤י בְכוֹרוֹ֙ אַמְנ֔וֹן לַאֲחִינֹ֖עַם הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִֽת ‘and his firstborn was Amnon, (a son) of Ahinoam the Jezereelite’ (2 Sam. 3:2) +
The Masoretic accents join לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ to לְדָוִ֗ד as if the latter was in apposition to the former. Typically when these two phrases are joined to each other there is a strong disjunctive separating them (Psa. 11:1; 14:1; 40:1; 70:1; 109:1; 139:1; cf. 18:1; but 36:1). However, they should probably be analyzed as separate clauses.
* David often appointed others לְנַצֵּחַ ‘to supervise’ (e.g., 1 Chron. 15:16–21; cf. 1 Chron. 23:1–4) but never, as far as we know, performed this duty himself.
* Most four-word superscriptions have this exact same pattern , and so the accents must be constrained by the rules governing a four-word poetic superscription (Psa. 4:1; 5:1; 8:1; 12:1; 53:1; 54:1; 55:1; 58:1; 62:1; 65:1; 67:1). The In Psalm 58:1 in particular, the לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ is syntactically disjunctive with what follows (אַל־תַּשְׁחֵ֗ת 'do not destroy') despite carrying a conjunctive accent. +
'''Who is the grammatical subject of תנדף?'''
Both ancient and modern translations differ as to the grammatical subject of this verb, (although the semantic patient remains the same, viz., the enemies). Bound up with this difficulty is a potential textual problem.
Versions:
LXX: ὡς ἐκλείπει καπνός, ἐκλιπέτωσαν 'As smoke vanishes, let them vanish (NETS)
Vulgate: sicut deficit fumus deficiant ‘as smoke runs out, may they run out’
Peshitta: ܘܐܝܟ ܕܡܬ݁ܛܠܩ ܬܢܢܐ ܢܬܛܠܩܘܢ ‘as smoke vanishes, may they vanish’.
Targum: הֵיכְמָא דִשְׁקִיף תְּנָנָא יִשְׁקְפוּן ‘As smoke is driven away, may they drive away(?)!’. The active form ישקפון is perplexing. White (1988) lists no variants.
Option 1: ‘You’ (viz., YHWH)
* ESV, ASV, GNT, HCSB, KJV, NASB1995, NIV, NLT, RSV, DELUT, ELBBK, NGU2011, BCC1923, BDS, LSG, SCH2000, LBLA, NTV, RVR95, NET
* The more natural candidate, with an elided object'"`UNIQ--ref-00000012-QINU`"'
Option 2: ‘They’ (viz., the enemies in v.2)
* NVI, PDV2017, DHH94I, PDT, LXX, Jerome, Peshitta, Targum This option requires either
** revocalisation'"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"' or
** textual emendation (e.g., to something like יִתְנַדְּפוּ: ils se dissipent %5BLa Sainte Bible%5D) or
** reanalysis of תנדף (''qal'') as intransitive, so Jerome (deficiant ‘may they fail’) LXX ἐκλιπέτωσαν ‘let them vanish’ (NETS).
Barthelemy (2005) argues that the versions saw the consonants תנדף and assimilated to כהנדף which clearly looks ''niphal'' (parallel with כהמס in the next phrase). Thus they must have read a passive (licensed by the preceding ''niphal'') and a plural (necessitated by the context). But this is not quite right. Only one version uses a formal passive (peshitta), which is middle in meaning. The rest of the versions render תנדף not as if it was passive, but as if it was intransitive/middle. Is the Hebrew verb נדף transitive? It does not seem so. Every instance of the ''niphal'' has a semantic patient, usually foliage (Lev 26:36; Job 13:25; Isa 19:7; Psa 41:2; Prov 21:6). In the ''qal'', which only occurs twice, נדף takes a direct object, both times a suffix (Psalm 1:4; Job 32:13). It is striking that all the versions read a plural active verb here, even where it doesn't make any sense (cf. Targums). It's unlikely that the versions would have ‘heard’ תִּנָּדֵף and translated with a plural patient (lit., ‘they are driven’ >> ‘they vanish’. If they really saw תנדף the obvious candidate for a grammatical subject is the Lord.
'''What does לפני אלהים modify?'''
It seems that a few interpret the phrase לפני אלהים as modifying both יעלצו and ישמחו (e.g., GNT, HCSB, NIV, DELUT). We have chosen to diagram the verb phrases as independent clauses because
* The verb שמח in the ''qal'' is never modified by a phrase indicating the place where the verb happened. If it is modified, it is usually with ב to indicate the reason for rejoicing (e.g., 31:8; 32:11; 40:17; 64:11, etc.) (cf. 58:11 where the reason is introduced by כי).
* עלץ is modified by a locative one other time—in the very next verse עִלְז֥וּ לְפָנָֽיו (with the byform of עלץ) +
All the ancient versions were clearly reading ביה שׁמו.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' There is therefore no need to emend the text in any way. The challenge is interpreting this strange phrase.
Option 1: It's own clause (preferred) (viz.,. something like ‘Yahweh is his name’
* Nearly every translation, both ancient and modern, reflect this option:
* ASV, ESV, GNT, HCSB, NIV, NLT, RSV, DELUT, ELBBK, NGU2011, NVI, BCC1923, BDS, LSG, PDV2017, SCH2000, NTV, PDT, RVR95, NET, LXX, Peshitta.
** Symmachus (διὰ τοῦ ἸᾺ ἡ ὀνομασία αὐτοῦ.) and Jerome (In Domino nomen eius) appear simply to calque the construction. ‘Lord’ is not in apposition to ‘name’ in either case since both Latin and Greek require the two appositive words to agree in case.
* A known function of ב—bet essentia ('bet of identity') with proper names (Exod. 6:3; Isa. 26:4; so Jenni 1992, 89, Waltke O'Conner §11.2.5; Manross 1954)
* So Hupfeld (1860), Delitzsch (1871), Hengstenberg (1863)
Option 2: Adverbial Phrase subordinate to סלו
* KJV: ‘Extol him that rideth upon the heavens
By his name JAH, and rejoice before him.
* So Hossfeld and Zenger (2005, 158) although they give no justification. Ehrlich (1905, 152) cites Job 28:16 and 19, but the root there appears to be סלה, not סלל.
Option 3: Relative clause modifying רֹכֵב
* So LBLA: 'cuyo nombre es el Señor' (cf. NASB1995)
* No support from commentators (as far as I can tell).
Other
* Goldingay (2013, s.v. verse 5), following Whitely (1972) analyses the ב as emphatic. Not only would this result in the same analysis grammatically, but Whitely has since been refuted by Boulet (2020).
* Briggs (1906) emends the text to ערבות שמיו ‘the clouds of his heavens’. This emendation is unfoudned textually. +
'''v. 7b''' – The construct chain עַ֣ם מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ has a semantic relationship of '''entity-characteristic''' or perhaps even '''entity-location'''. Nevertheless, the salient ''act'' of מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ as "%5Bproviding%5D pasture" is probably the intended construal, rather than the location (see, e.g., NABRE, "we are the people he shepherds"; JPS, "we are the people He tends"; and TOB, "nous sommes le peuple qu'il fait paître"), so, overall, '''entity-characteristic''' is to be preferred.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"' +
'''v. 7b''' – The construct chain עַ֣ם מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ has a semantic relationship of '''entity-characteristic''' or perhaps even '''entity-location'''. Nevertheless, the salient ''act'' of מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ as "%5Bproviding%5D pasture" is probably the intended construal, rather than the location (see, e.g., NABRE, "we are the people he shepherds"; JPS, "we are the people He tends"; and TOB, "nous sommes le peuple qu'il fait paître"), so, overall, '''entity-characteristic''' is to be preferred.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' +
'''v. 7b''' – The construct chain צֹ֣אן יָד֑וֹ has a semantic relationship of '''entity-manner'''. See, e.g., NIV "the flock under his care"; EÜ ''die Herde, von seiner Hand geführt'' ("the flock led by his hand"); TOB ''le troupeau qu'il garde'' ("the herd which he guards"). Alternatively, it could be understood as '''possession-possessor''', as the probably intended by the NET "the sheep he owns." +
'''v. 7b''' – The ''waw'' conjoining the two construction chains עַ֣ם מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ וְצֹ֣אן יָד֑וֹ most plausibly communicates appositive elaboration, technically referred to as an explicative ''waw''. It is unclear how the semantic denotation of either phrase in "we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand" (ESV) warrants a ''waw'' of addition. +
'''v. 1''' – The construct chain שִׁ֣יר יְדִידֹֽת is literally "a love song" (so BDB, DCH)—see the grammar notes for the plural form יְדִידֹת. The designations appears to be a genre marker, and is unique within the Psalter, though see Isa 5:1, which uses similar (though not exactly the same) wording: אָשִׁ֤ירָה נָּא֙ לִֽידִידִ֔י '''שִׁירַ֥ת דּוֹדִ֖י''' לְכַרְמ֑וֹ "I shall sing to my beloved a '''love song''' about his vineyard." Given that "love song" in English refers only to romantic love and that sense is absent in the psalm, we have preferred the term ''ode'' (cf. Blankesteijn 2021, 2, 8).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000027-QINU`"' +
'''The grammar of אבי יתומים ודין אלמנות'''
Option 1: Apposition
* A number of translations, especially the ancient versions, reflect a reading according to which the epithets בי יתומים and דין אלמנות are in apposition to the previous suffix of לפניו (so LXX, Peshitta, Aquilla %5Bδικαστοῦ χηρῶν%5D, Symmachus %5Bκαὶ ὑπερδικοῦντος χηρῶν%5D.
* According to Hupfeld, the appositives give the reasons for the praise commanded in v. 5.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"'
* Appositives are attested at the beginning of verses (Gen 13:4; Exod 35:11; Lev 14:31; Num 31:23; Isa 43:21; Psalm 8:8).
Option 2: Subject-Predicate
* Nearly every modern translation regards the first half of the verse as the subject and the second half as the predicate (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB 1995, NIV, RSV, ELBBK, NGU2011, NVI, SCH2000, DHH94I, LBLA, RVR95)
* "The cola come in the opposite order in the Hebrew, because the subj. comes in its regular position after the predicate."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"'
Option 3: Extraposition-Resumption
* A few translations seem to analyze the epithets as extraposed and resumed by an elided pronoun, viz., 'A father...(this) is God, whose...' (NLT, LSG, NTV, BDS).
Option 4: Circumstantial clause
* Two translations in particular (PDV2017, PDT) seem like they analyze במעון קדשו as a circumstantial clause, viz., ‘God, (while) in his holy habitation, is a...’
* Unless במעון קדשו is metaphorical, this option is unlikely since it implies that God's capacity as helper of the poor is dependent on his physical location. +
'''Is שכנו בצחיח a relative clause?'''
* The LXX translates the final two clauses as follows:
** ἐξάγων πεπεδημένους ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ, ὁμοίως τοὺς παραπικραίνοντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν τάφοις ‘leading out prisoners with manliness, likewise those who embitter them that live in tombs’ (NETS).
* On external grounds, however, this is unlikely, as it was corrected by all the revisors:
** Aquilla: πλὴν ἀφιστάμενοι ἐσκήνωσαν λεωπετρίανδε ‘but those who turn away have pitched tents in’
** Symmachus: οἱ δέ ἀπειθεῖς κατοικήσουσι καύσωνος ξηρότητα ‘but the disobedient will dwell in the dryness of the burning heat’
** Theodotian: πλὴν ἐκκλίνοντες κατεσκήνωσαν πεποιθότες
* Finally, all the ancient versions and nearly every modern translation see three independent clauses here (except DELUT and SCH2000, who analyze אלהים as the antecedent of which the following clauses are relative clauses). +