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
Ancient versions and modern translations, on the whole, represent two ways of understanding the phrase זה סיני in v. 9
* Option 1: Divine Title (apposition)
** Those that understand זה סיני as a title treat it grammatically as standing in apposition to the preceding אלהים (although notice that this does not reflect the division of the accents).
** Symmachus (ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου τοῦ Σιναΐ;) and the ESV (God, the One of Sinai) render the זה an independent personal pronoun whereas the majority of other translations gloss the epithet by simply tranlating ‘God of Sinai’ (so GNT; HCSB; NIV; NLT; NVI; BDS; PDV2017; NTV; NET )
* Option 2: Independent clause with elided verb
** The LXX and a few modern translations (DELUT, ELBBK) leave the difficulty in their translations, perhaps reflecting that זה סיני is an independent clause with an elided verb. The modern translations make this elision explicit (e.g., ASV ‘Yon Sinai trembled at the presence of God, ’; cf. KJV, NASB1995, RSV, BCC1923; LSG; DHH94I; LBLA; RVR95) +
'''The division of נחלתך'''
The Septuagint (and, it seems, Symmachus) groups נחלתך with what precedes, as if it was further determining the verb תניף: βροχὴν ἑκούσιον ἀφοριεῖς, ὁ θεός, τῇ κληρονομίᾳ σου, καὶ ἠσθένησεν, σὺ δὲ κατηρτίσω αὐτήν 'Spontaneous watering, O God, you will ordain for your heritage, and it languished, but you restored it; (NETS) (So Peshitta ܠܝܪܬܘܬܟ). However, nearly every other ancient and modern version (with the exception of NET) groups נחלתך with what follows. Additionally, no medieval MSS show any variation in accentuation here.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
* Aquilla: τὴν κληροδοσίαν σου καὶ μεμοχθηκυῖαν σὺ ἣδρασας αὐτήν your distribution of land and, though it was wearied, you set it'
* Symmachus: ἣν ἐξεπόνησας καὶ ἣδρασας 'which you completed and set in place' +
'''The relationship between the two lines'''
* Nearly every modern translation takes these as two simple clauses ‘The Lord gives the word’ and ‘those who bring great news are a great host’. This reading is also sound textually.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
* Every ancient version, however, tries to relate the clauses in some way.
** The LXX makes המבשרות the indirect object and the phrase צבא רב the direct object of that verbal idea: κύριος δώσει ῥῆμα τοῖς εὐαγγελιζομένοις δυνάμει πολλῇ, 'The Lord will give a word to those who bring good news to a large host' (cf. Symmachus). This, however, requires too much elision.
** Jerome translates המבשרות צבא רב as one big construct chain acting as the indirect object of יתן (...adnuntiatricibus fortitudinis plurimae). Neither is this as parsimonious as two separate clauses
** The Peshitta takes אמר המבשרות evidently as a construct chain functioning as the direct object of יתן. This division, however, does not respect the masoretic accents. +
'''Is אדני a proper name?'''
Elitzur (2015) that אדני in this psalm should be considered a proper name. By his estimation, the form went from a submissive address to a proper name in the 8th century, the date to which he dates this psalm: "Mention is made of the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem (v. 30), thus apparently teaching that the psalm postdates David; and of the princes of Zebulun and Naphtali (v. 28), showing that it most likely predates the exile of the northern tribes during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (732 BCE)."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"' +
'''The text: One ידדון or two?'''
* The LXX appears to only have read one verb here: ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ, 'The king of the hosts of the beloved, (NETS)
** Fields (1875, 201), however, notes that Origin supplied another τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ with an asterisk, indicating that it was present in the Hebrew text but not in his version of the LXX. Augustine also comments ‘not all codices have the repetition, but the most pristine (codices) mark them (viz., the two words repeated) with a nearby star...’ (reptitionem non omnes codices habent, et eam diligentiores stella apposita praenotant; see (Rahlfs 1931, 189).
** Symmachus indeed read two verbs here, although he translated them differently perhaps to avoid repetition βασιλεῖς τῶν στρατιῶν ἠγαπήθησαν, ἀγαπητοὶ ἐγένοντο ‘the kings of the armies were loved, they became beloved
** The Vulgate, Targum and nearly every modern translation reflects two verbs here (but Peshitta ܡ̈݁ܠܟܐ ܕܚܝ̈ܠܘܬܐ݂ ܢܬ݁ܟܢܫܘܢ ‘kings of armies assembled’) +
'''The function of נות בית'''
* Although LXX translates as a dative of indirect object here (ὡραιότητι τοῦ οἴκου ‘...for the beauty of the house’ %5BNETS%5D), all other ancient versions and modern translations understand this phrase as the subject of the following verb.
** Aquilla: καὶ ὡραιότης οἴκου μερίζεται λάφυρα
** Symmachus: καὶ ἡ δίαιτα τοῦ οἴκου διανέμει λάφυρα +
Many versions have translated this verse in many ways. As Emerton (1993) notes, ‘Verse 16 has...been interpreted in a varity of ways in English translations of the Bible’. He notes the following (note that in some of these, אלהים is understood as a superlative %5Bcf. Jonah 3:3%5D).
* Statement: e.g., ‘A Mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan’ (RV)
* Exclamation/Vocative: e.g., ‘O mighty mountain, mountain of Bashan’ (RSV)
* Question-Exclamation: e.g., ‘That peak of Bashan, a mountain of God? Rather, a mountain of pride, that peak of Bashan!’ (Jerusalem Bible)
* Comparative Statement: ‘e.g., The hill of God is as the hill of Bashan; an high hill as the hill of Bashan’ (AV).
"The advantage of understanding verse 16a as a question is that it gives full value to the expression "a mountain of God" . Mount Bashan (Hermon? ) is not the mountain which God has chosen, and to which verse 17 refers. In verse 17 various mountains, probably including Mount Bashan of verse 16, are told not to look with envy (if that is what the verb means) on the mountain on which God has been pleased to establish his dwelling."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"' +
18a and b must be treated together since some versions depart from the common understanding of a due to a textual problem in b.
* The LXX, Vulgate and any modern translations (ESV, ASV, HCSB, KJV, NASB1995, NIV, DELUT; ELBBK; BCC1923; LSG; cf. BDS; NET %5Bboth of which have two clauses, perhaps reflecting the same grammar%5D PDV2017; LBLA) translate the first half of the verse as if it were a verbless clause, viz., ‘The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands’
* However, some translations subordinate the first half of the verse to the second half as a consequence of emending the word בָם to בא, e.g., ‘With his many thousands of mighty chariots, the Lord comes from Sinai into the holy place’ (GNT, cf. NLT; RSV). Note that this is perhaps how Symmachus is understanding the verse as a whole, since his translation of 18a does is fragmentary on its own (ὄχησις τοῦ θεοῦ μυριάδων, χιλιάδες ἠχούντων ‘riding of the god of myriads—thousands of those pealing’.)
** There is no textual basis for this emendation. Every version reflects a text containing the consonants בם: LXX (ἐν αὐτοῖς); Gallican Psalter (in eis); Vulgate (in eis); and the Peshitta (ܒܗܘܢ).
** Barthélemy proposes an attractive interpretation. The 3mp suffix on בם refers back to רכב אלהים (perhaps construed collectively).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' The host to which the רכב אלהים refers is ostensibly that mentioned in Deut. 33:2 and 2 Kings 6:17. The parallelism between סיני and אדני (not to mention the sound correspondence) also suggest that the סיני here is to be read as the previous זה סיני; thus, ‘he of Sinai'. +
'''לשכון argument structure'''
The translations of this verse vary to a large degree. Whatever grammatical analyses underlie this variation, the difficulty seems to come down to the argument structure לשכן. The major options may be consolidated into the following. Note there are a few idiosyncratic attempts at translating, such as that of the LXX: ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι ‘you received gifts by a person, indeed, when they were disobedient to encamp’ (NETS). The LXX analyses סוררים as the main predicate of a temporal clause itself complemented by לשכון. It is not clear how Jerome understands the verse. Similarly, Aquilla seems to treat אף as an adversative particle and סוררים as the predicate complement in the concessional clause; the לשכן is complementing לקחת (καίπερ ἀπειθεῖς τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι '...although disobedient—to dwell᾽.
* Option 1: סוררים subject, יה אלהים adverb(ial accusative)
** The Peshitta translates v.19b as its own clause ܐܦ ܡܪ̈ܘܕܐ ܠܐ ܢܥܡ݂ܪܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ. ‘But, the rebellious will not dwell before the Lord’—perhaps reading לא ישכנו. In any case, סוררים is the subject and יה אלהים is an adverbial idea.
** A few modern translations adopt this strategy, although without the negation, e.g., ‘Même les rebelles habiteront près de Yahweh Dieu’ (BCC1923, LSG).
* Option 2: לשכן purpose, יה אלהים apposition to subject of לקח, and סוררים as another adverbial phrase to לקח.
** The majority of translations reflect this analysis, where לשכון a purpose clause to לקח and סוררים is another adjunct with באדם, but in focus. The focus is marked by אף.
** ‘...and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there’ (ESV, so ASV, NLT, HCSB, NIV, DELUT, NVI, BDS, LBLA, RVR95, NTV, PDV2017)
** Note that in this case the complement of לשכון is elided, viz., ‘...dwell with them....’ (ASV), ‘...live there...'
* Option 3: יה אלהם as subject and סוררים as adverbial
** Targum (וּבְרַם סַרְבָּנַיָא דִי מִתְגַיְירִין וְתָיְבִין בִּתְתוּבָא שְׁרָת עֲלֵיהוֹן שְׁכִינַת יְקָרָא דַייָ אֱלֹהִים ‘But, the stubborn who are converted and turn in repentance—the precious shekhinah of the Lord rests upon them’) and Symmahcus (ἔτι καὶ ἐν ἀπειθοῦσι κατασκηνῶσαι ‘yet also among the the disobedient to dwell’) seem to reflect an analysis similar to the previous suggestion semantically, but differing in its details. Here, it seems that סוררים is directly modifies לשכן.
Note that options 1 and 3 involve the so-called asseverative lamed'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"'
Eichler (2022) has recently proposed to emend לִשְׁכֹּ֤ן ׀ יָ֬הּ אֱלֹהִֽים in 68:19 to ואף סוררים לשכני האהלים ‘Yes, and prisoners from the nomads’ (136) on the basis of a similar name in found in Judges 8.11 דרך הַשְּׁכוּנֵי באהלים ‘by the Road of the Tent Dwellers’. The significance of the parallel stems from the fact both the road in Judges 8 leads to Bashan—a prominent place in Psalm 68. The proposal is pure conjecture, however, with no external support from the versions.
'''לנו'''
Option 1: Possession
* The majority of translations, both ancient and modern, take לנו as the predicate of an asyndetic relative clause, viz., ‘the god that is to us’ >> ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν 'our God (So, e.g., ESV, KJV, NVI, NIV, PDV 2017, Symmachus, Jerome)
Option 2: Dative of Benefit
* Some translations understand אל למושעות as the predicate and the לנו as marking the beneficiary. Vis., ‘God is unto us a God of deliverances’ (ASV; so e.g., NASB1995, DELUT, ELBBK, BCC1923, Targum?) (So Jenni 2000, 67)
* Morphologically, the noun is probably from the ma/iqtal-pattern denoting, among other things, the concrete result of a verbal action, viz., 'deliverances' (NASB1995). The subject and predicate seem to say that God is a god of acts of salvation, which would raise the question, 'for whom'? The לנו supplies the answer to this question. +
'''למות תוצאות'''
A number of translations translate the phrase לַמָּ֗וֶת תּוֹצָאֽוֹת as if the second member were in construct to the first: αἱ διέξοδοι τοῦ θανάτου ‘the escape routes of death’ (LXX). Many modern translations have something like ‘escape routes from death’ which may or may not reflect a construct. In any case, for a construct chain ‘die Wortstellung nicht spricht.’'"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"' Much more likely is that the phrase represents an asyndetic relative clause (so Symmachus αἱ εἰς θάνατον ἔξοδοι). +
'''How to interpret מִנֵּהוּ in v. 24'''
* Option 1: Apposition for distributive
** Symmachus seems to have translated as a distributive, viz., ἀπὸ ἑκάστου ‘from each...’. This reading is most likely idiomatically rendering an apposition of מנהו to מאיבים
* Option 2: Emendation of מאיבים
** Some translations make sense of מנהו by adopting an emendation of the previous word viz., GNT ‘as much as they want’ (%5B?%5Dמאיבים >> מְיַאֲבִים).
* Option 3: מנהו %3D מֵן 'portion'
** 'It is more natural...to refer מִנֵּהוּ back to לְשׁוֹן (word which is usually fem., but sometimes perhaps in masc., xxii. 16, Prov. xxvi. 28); and, since side by side with מִמֶּנּוּ only מֶנהוּ occurs anywhere else, to take it in the signification pars ejus (מֵן from מָנַן %3D מָנָת, after the form גֵּז, הֵן, קֵץ, of the same meaning as מָנָה, מְנָת, lxiii. 11).''"`UNIQ--ref-00000012-QINU`"'
** E.g., 'the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from the foe' (ESV cf. ASV, HCSB, NASB1995, NIV, NLT, ELBBK, NVI, BCC1923, LSG, NTV)
* Option 4: Delete
** It seems that some translations simply delete the מנהו.
** 'And the tongue of thy dogs in the same' (KJV), Peshitta
** Some translations seem like they delete מאיבים : DELUT, NGU2011
* Option 5: 'From him'
** The preposition מן + the 3ms suffix, (so LXX, Jerome), but this would be a novel form (cf. Delitzsch's statement above in Option 3). +
'''The grammar of 24b'''
* Option 1: Elided verb
** Symmachus supplies a verb phrase of which ‘the tongues of your dogs' is the subject: ὅπως συγκατεάξῃ ὁ πούς σου μετὰ αἵματος καὶ λάψῃ ἡ γλῶσσα τῶν κυνῶν σου ἀπὸ ἑκάστου τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου ‘so that you may break your foot with blood and that the tongue of your dogs will lap (it?) from each of your enemies’ (Retroverted from: ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܟܚܕܐ ܬܬܒܘܪ ܪܓܠܟ ܥܡ ܕܡܐ ܘܢܠܘܥ ܠܫܢܐ ܕܟܠܒܝܟ ܡܢ ܟܠܚܕ ܡܢ ܒܥܠܕܒܒܝܟ 'so that you may break your foot with blood and that the tongue of your dogs will lap (it?) from each of your enemies’).
** This is more likely an interpretation rather than a textual variant, since Symmachus retains the more difficult MT readings in two places (viz., רחץ and מאֹיבים).
** So GNT 'and your dogs may lap up as much as they want', NET 'and your dogs may eat their portion of the enemies’ corpses.”'
* Option 2: Verbless Clause
** Some translations read a verbless clause here. This often involves interpreting מנהו as 'its portion', referring back to לשון. In this case לשון כלבים would be in extraposition. A translation along these lines seem to be the preference of the modern translations.
** 'the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from the foe' (ESV, cf. ASV, HCSB, NASB1995, NIV, NLT, ELBBK, NVI, BCC1923, LSG, NTV +
'''Is God in the sanctuary or coming into the sanctuary?'''
* Some translations read בקדש as the predicate of what must be an asyndetic relative clause, viz., ‘τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ. ‘the King in the holy place ’’ (NETS).
* Others, however, seem to understand בקדש as complementing the verbal substantive הליכה,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' viz., 'the procession of God, my king, into his sanctuary' (ESV) +
'''Who goes first, the singers or the musicians?'''
The preposition אחר seems like it maintains its normal sense in ABH (אַחֲרֶ֥יךָ) Judges 5:14. But it does not make much sense for X to precede after Y (so Peshitta, Targums). Various strategies are employed to get around this, viz, praecesserunt cantores eos qui post tergum psallebant 'and the singers went before them who sing hymns behind the rear’. So Hupfeld (1860, 232) 'אַחַר%5D nicht Praep.....sondern Adv. darnach’ (cf. 1 Chron 15:19, 21, where the singers precede instrumentalists, assuming the discourse reflects the order of procession. On אחר as an adverb, see Gen 22:13; Exodus 5:1). +
'''Who is in the midst (בתוך) whom?'''
* Option 1: Adverb modifying תופפות?
** Are the women in the midst of the singers and musicians ('the women are playing tambourines בתוך 'in the midst'?)
** So GNT, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NIV, NLT, RSV, BCC1923, PDV2017, NTV.
* Option 2: Adverb modifying קרבו
** Are the woman flanking the singers and musicians? ('...approach בתוך 'amdist' the women...')
** So Peshitta, LXX, Jerome, ASV, NASB1995, DELUT, ELBBK, NGU2011, NVI, BDS, LSG, NET.
** 'so daß die vorhergenannten von solchen eingefaßt waren; nicht "in der Mitte Jungfrauen", als ob diese zwischen den Sängern u. Spielern gegangen wären’ (Hupfeld 1860, 231) so NET 'to celebrate military victory, women would play tambourines (see Exodus 15:20; Judges 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6)' +
'''ממקור ישראל'''
* Option 1: Independent (asyndetic) relative clause (with verb elided)
** E.g., 'the LORD, O you who are of Israel's fountain' (ESV, so Targum, ASV, GNT, NASB1995, RSV, DELUT, ELBBK, NGU2011, NVI, BCC1923, BDS, LSG)
** This interpretation is likely if מקור here refers to a water source (cf. Isa 48:1; 51:1 so Hupfeld 1860, 232; Baethgen 1904, 209)
* Option 2: Modifies an elided verb
** E.g., 'Praise the Lord from the fountain of Israel' (HCSB, so KJV, NIV)
* Option 3: Relative clause modifying יהוה
** In a few translations, the phrase modifies יהוה. This analysis could either be parsed as a dependent asyndetic relative clause (viz.., ...YHWH, who is of the fount of Israel) or an independent asyndetic relative clause in apposition to YHWH (viz., '...YHWH—he who is...)
** E.g., ...τὸν θεόν, τὸν κύριον ἐκ πηγῶν Ισραηλ. ‘...God—the Lord from Israel's fountains' (LXX so NLT, NTV %5B'la fuente de vida de Israel'%5D) +
'''The grammar regarding רֹדֵם'''
The ancient versions are virtually unanimous in agreeing that שם should be the predicate of 28a, viz., ‘there is benjamin’ (on adverbial predicate see Waltke & O'Conner §4.5). The contentious point in 28a is the word רֹדֵם
* Option 1: Circumstantial clause from the root רד"ם
** The LXX (ἐν ἐκστάσει) and Peshitta (ܒܫܠܝ݂ܐ) seem read the consonants רדם as a participle functioning as a circumstantial clause (unless they were reading as a noun from the same root) Both LXX and Peshitta translated this as prepositional phrases.
* Option 2: Participle from רד"ה (many options). Both Jerome and Aquilla reflect a participle plus 3ms suffix here. This analysis gives rise to a number of readings, depending on whether or not the action of the verb is in view ('there is benjamin leading them' %5Bcircum.%5D) or if the verb is substantivised (there is benjamin—their leader %5Bapp.%5D)
** Jerome seems to also read as a circumstantial clause (continens eos).
** Aquilla parses this as the dependent noun of a construct phrase, the head of which is צעיר, itself in apposition to Benjamin.
** Note that the expectation of רדָם with ''qamets'' does not impair this reading. The form הַֽמַּעֲלֵ֣ם in Isa 63:11 also has a ''tsere'' connecting vowel.
** So GNT?, ESV(circum.), ASV(app.), KJV(circum.) HCSB(circum.), NASB(circum.), NIV(circum)., NLT (circum.), DELT(circum.), NGU20111(circum), LSG(circum.), BDS(circum.), LBLA(circum.), NTV(circum) +
'''The grammar regarding רִגְמָתָ֑ם'''
Another point in the verse at which versions diverge in their understanding. To some extent, the grammar of this word will depend on its lexical meaning (see Lexical Semantics).
* Option 1: The LXX evidently read the word to mean something like ‘authority’ and so placed it in apposition to what preceded (so, Peshitta, Symmachus?,)
* Option 2: Jerome interpreted the reference of the word as to some sort of article of clothing in which case we are then dealing with an adverbial describing their condition
* Option 3: Many modern translations interpret as ‘throng’ or 'group' or 'council' which would also lend itself to an adverbial reading. (so GNT, ESV, ASV, KJV, HCSB, NASB1995, DELUT, NGU2011, LSG, BDS, LBLA, NTV cf. NLT, NIV). +
'''אלהים or אלהיך'''
The LXX, Symmachus, Peshitta and Targum all reflect and imperative צַוֵּה here, which must have resulted from a graphic confusion between ך and מ at the end of אלהיך in a particular script viz., אלהיך is more likely the subject of a perfect, whereas אלהים an imperative. Barthélemy (2005) does point out a number of important facts.
* The vocalization צִוָּה is supported by a masoretic note in A, L and the Cairo codex.
* Few of the medieval MSS mentioned by Kennicot as attesting אלהים actually contain this reading, since, apparently unnoticed by Kennicot, many of the stated instances are corrected by a second hand.
In any case, beyond אלהים vs. אלהיך this is more a question of verbal semantics and does not really affect the grammar of these first two words. +