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
The word אֱמוּנָה could be either the direct object of רְעֵה or an adverbial modifier. The issue depends on the meaning of the verb רְעֵה (see lexical semantics).
*Option 1: Direct object.
**Option 1a: "shepherd/graze upon>>be busy with faithfulness" (cf. HALOT, on analogy with Prov 15:14 וּפִי כְסִילִים יִרְעֶה אִוֶּלֶת). So Targum: "be occupied with (עסוק) faithfulness" (Stec 2004, 79).
**Option 1b: "graze on faithfulness>>a reliable food supply" (see Kselman 1997, 252). The following verb ענג in v. 4 is also associated with food (cf. Isa 55:3; 58:14; 66:11).
**Option 1c: "befriend faithfulness" (ESV). According to this view, the verb רעה is from a different root.
**Option 1d: "shepherd>>guard faithfulness", i.e., "maintain your integrity" (NET, cf. NJPS: "remain loyal").
*Option 2: Adverbial. "Live securely" (CSB; so Baethgen 1904, 104; Hossfeld and Zenger 1993, 234). Cf. Symmachus and Jerome (who was probably influenced by Symmachus): διηνεκῶς (adverbial -ως ending), ''fide'' (ablative case). The image is similar to that in Isa 14:30: "The poorest of the poor will find pasture (וְרָעוּ), and the needy will lie down in safety" (NIV; cf. Ezek 34:14, 18f; Isa 33:6). On nominals which function adverbially, see GKC 118m-q. +
LXX omits the conjunction at the beginning of v. 4 (cf. Peshitta). 11QPs-d has the conjunction, which weighs the external evidence in favor of it. The LXX omission might be due to haplography within the LXX tradition (cf. the surrounding και's of 3b and 4b as well as the identical beginning of the first word of 4a, καταρύφησον). +
v. 5: LXX and Targum read גַל (from גלה, "reveal") instead of גוֹל (from גלל, "roll"). But see the same expression in Ps 22:9 (גֹּ֣ל אֶל־יְהוָ֣ה, where the LXX translates accurately as ἐλπίζειν) and Prov 16:3 (גֹּ֣ל אֶל־יְהוָ֣ה מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ). So Jerome: ''volve''. +
v. 6: The Masorah Parva notes that מִשׁפָּטֶךָ is a defective plural which occurs a total of five times in the Bible. Kennicott lists more than 60 mss which have the full plural spelling: משפטיך (cf. de Rossi pg. 25; cf. Peshitta ܘܕܝܢ̈ܝܟ which has a plural). Some of the earliest witnesses have a singular noun, e.g., LXX (τὸ κρίμα σου), Jerome (''iudicium''), which fits better in the literary context (cf. the collocation of צדקה and משׁפט in Gen 18:19; Pss 33:5; 99:4; 106:3; Job 37:23; Prov 16:8; 21:3). מִשׁפָּטֶךָ should probably be analyzed as a pausal form (Baethgen 1904, 105; Revell, "List of Pausal Forms" 2004, 33). +
The MT (וְהִתְח֪וֹלֵ֫ל) has a ''hithpoel'' imperative (root: חיל), which occurs also in Job 15:20 and Jer 23:19). BHS and HALOT propose reading וְתוֹחֵל instead (a ''hiphil'' 2ms from the root יחל %3D "wait"; cf. Aquila ἀποκαραδόκει %3D "expect earnestly"), but our oldest Hebrew witness, the Qumran pesher manuscript 4Q171, supports the reading התחולל in its lemma. The LXX's translation (ἱκέτευσον %3D "supplicate, beseech"; cf. Symmachus ἱκέτευε) is probably just an attempt to make sense of this difficult text (cf. Dorival 2021, 434). +
The ''lamed'' preposition + infinitive construct (לְהָרֵעַ) modifies the clause and indicates the result of becoming upset ("so dass du nur schadest" %5BJenni 2000, 220%5D; cf. Deut 9:8, 20; 29:26; cf. LXX: μὴ παραζήλου ὥστε πονηρεύεσθαι). The particle אַךְ modifies לְהָרֵעַ, indicating that "doing evil" is the only possible outcome of getting angry. As Hupfeld explains, "Anger only serves to lead a person into sin, particularly inappropriate speech against God (cf. Pss 39:2; 73:2)... such that the person himself falls in with the evildoers" (1868, 307). +
Alternatively, אַךְ לְהָרֵעַ might be "a clause to itself (cf. Prov 11:24; 21:5; 22:16): it tends only to evil-doing, it ends only in thy involving thyself in sin" (Delitzsch 1996, 283). Cf. NIV: "do not fret--it leads only to evil" (so ESV, NLT, NET, etc.). +
4Q171 (along with a few medieval mss listed in de Rossi %5Bp. 26%5D) reads בא (qatal or participle, though more likely a participle) instead of יָבֹא (a yiqtol)—זומם רשע לצדיק וחורק ע%5Bליו שניו %5Dיהוה ישחק לו כיא ראה כיא בא יומו. The LXX (ἥξει) has a future indicative verb, which could attest to either reading. If יָבֹא is the earlier reading, then the ''yod'' might have dropped out due to haplography: כי בא << כי יבא. +
4Q171 reads a first person singular verb with a ''he'' suffix in its lemma: ואתבוננה ("I will stare")—ועוד מעט ואין רשע ואתבוננה על מקומו ואיננו (reading adopted by Craigie 1983, 294). The LXX (καὶ ζητήσεις) agrees with MT in reading a 2ms verb. The 2ms verb better fits the context (cf. the consistent use of 2ms verbs and pronouns through vv. 1-9). The 1cs reading of 4Q171 might be a harmonization to vv. 35-36, a similar strophe which uses first-person language (cf. Ruiz 2009, 53). Or, the variant אתבוננה may have a graphic explanation. At one point in the textual history, התבוננתָ might have been written as אתבוננתא (cf. Kutscher 1974, 163), which could easily be confused for אתבוננא / אתבוננה. +
v. 16: Instead of the plural adjective רַבִּים modifying the nominal רְשָׁעִים ("many wicked people"), the LXX has a singular adjective (πολύν) modifying the word for "wealth" (πλοῦτον) (cf. Jerome: divitiae... multae; Peshitta: ܩܢܝܢܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ). Other witnesses, including 4Q171 (רשעים רבי%5Bם%5D), agree with the MT and read רַבִּים (cf. Aquila and Symmachus: πολλῶν; Targum: רשיעין סגיעין). The LXX reading is probably an attempt to make the text easier to understand (cf. Barthélemy 2005). +
v. 17: The participle סוֹמֵךְ could either be an active predicative participle ("YHWH is supporting the righteous", as in v. 18a; cf. LXX: ὑποστηρίζει, most modern translations) or a nominalized constituent functioning as the predicate complement ("YHWH is the supporter of the righteous"). The word order suggests the latter. A predicate-complement—subject word order is easier to explain than a verb—object—subject word order. +
The LXX reads ὁδοὺς (perhaps from דרכי) instead of ἡμέρας (%3DMT יְמֵ֣י, so Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). The LXX's reading is probably a harmonization to Ps 1:6a: γινώσκει κύριος ὁδὸν δικαίων. +
The word רָעָה could be either (1) an adjective modifying עֵת (cf. LXX ἐν καιρῷ πονηρῷ; Jerome ''tempore malo'') or (2) a noun in construct with עֵת (cf. Targum בעידן בישתא). The fact that עֵת is "often in construct defined by the noun following" (BDB) supports the latter analysis. (Because there is little to no difference in meaning, the alternative is not represented on the diagram.) +
Verse 20 contains one of the most difficult exegetical issues in this psalm. It is not clear whether the phrase '''כִּיקַר כָּרִים''' in v. 20b refers to "the fat of lambs" (KJV), "the glory of the pastures" (ESV), or "fuel in a furnace" (REB). See %5B%5BThe Text, Grammar, and Meaning of Ps 37:20%5D%5D for an in-depth discussion. In short, the phrase probably refers to "the glory of the pastures" (ESV, cf. Ps 65:14), i.e., "the flowers of the field" (NIV), which, despite their beauty, quickly "come to an end" (אבד, v. 20a). The determining factor for this decision is the surrounding context of agricultural images for the wicked. The agricultural image for the wicked here at the end of the first half of the psalm (vv. 1-20) corresponds to the agricultural image for the wicked at the beginning of the psalm ("like grass," v. 2). Indeed, all of the similes for the wicked in Ps 37 are taken from the agricultural domain (cf. vv. 2, 20, 35). Furthermore, the image of fading flowers fits well with the image of vanishing smoke in the next line (v. 20c). Both flowers and smoke are images of transitoriness (cf. Hos 13:3; Ps 103:15-16). The point of these images is that the end of the wicked will be soon and sudden. This is the point of the verse even if an alternative interpretation is adopted ("fat of lambs" or "burning of ovens"). As Klein writes, "Entscheidend ist jedoch nicht das Bild, sondern die Aussage: Die Bösewichte verschwinden, als wären sie Rauch. Von ihnen bleibt nichts übrig, nicht einmal Asche" (Klein 2018, 68). Although they appear to flourish for the moment, their demise is imminent. And when they are destroyed, there will be no trace of their existence. +
v. 20c: Many witnesses appear to read כעשן (with a ''kaf''), including 4Q171 (כלו כעשן כולו), LXX (ὡσεί), Jerome iuxta Hebr (''sicut''), Peshitta (ܘܐܝܟ), and more than 30 medieval Hebrew mss listed by Kennicott (cf. Isa 51:6—כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֜יִם כֶּעָשָׁ֤ן נִמְלָ֨חוּ֙; Hos 13:3). Only MT and the Targum (ובתנן גהנם) clearly read a ''beth'' preposition (cf. the similar issue in Ps 102:4—כִּֽי־כָל֣וּ בְעָשָׁ֣ן יָמָ֑י), which is probably best interpreted as a ''beth essentiae'' (Baethgen 1904, 106; cf. GKC 119i). If the phrase כִּיקַר כָּרִים in the previous line refers to the "fat of lambs," then the ''beth'' preposition fits well, since animal sacrifices go up "in/as smoke." It makes sense, then, that the Targum, which interprets כָּרִים to refer to lambs, would also read a beth preposition. But if the phrase כִּיקַר כָּרִים refers to the flowers of a field (see exegetical issue), then the ''beth'' preposition "in/as smoke" does not work as well, unless we are to think that the image in this verse is that of a field set on fire (cf. Dahood 2008, 230). If כִּיקַר כָּרִים refers flowers in a field, then the ''kaf'' preposition ("like smoke") fits better. The verse compares YHWH's enemies to two different things: flowers which quickly fade (v. 20b) and smoke which quickly vanishes (v. 20c). Rather than a single image (a field on fire), the verse gives us two images, flowers and smoke, both images of transience. Cf. Hosea 13:3—"Therefore they will be like the morning mist (כַּעֲנַן־בֹּ֔קֶר), like the early dew (כַטַּ֖ל) that disappears, like chaff (כְּמֹץ֙) swirling from a threshing floor, like smoke (כְעָשָׁ֖ן) escaping through a window" (NIV). +
It is not clear whether the prepositional phrase כֶּעָשָׁן modifies the first כּלוּ, which precedes it, or the second כּלוּ, which follows it. The Masoretic tradition might support grouping the PP with the first כּלוּ, since the preposition in בֶעָשָׁן has no ''dagesh'' and the accent under the first כָּל֖וּ (''tarcha'') is conjunctive (so Baethgen 1904, 106; a number of Masoretic manuscripts, however, do have a ''dagesh''; see %5Bhttps://archive.org/details/liberpsalmoru00gins Ginsburg 1913, 73%5D). The word בֶעָשָׁ֣ן also has a conjunctive accent (''munach''), but this accent might be a substitute for the disjunctive accent ''revia mugrash'' (Delitzsch 1996, 284). The word order might also support grouping the prepositional phrase with the first verb, since modifiers typically follow (rather than precede) the verbs they modify (cf. Ps 102:4—כִּֽי־כָל֣וּ בְעָשָׁ֣ן יָמָ֑י). +
Several witnesses read וגם instead of just גם, including the lemma of 4Q171 (נער היי%5Dתי וגם זקנתי), 17 manuscripts in Kennicott, and probably also the parent text of the LXX: καὶ γὰρ ἐγήρασα (cf. Symmachus: ἀλλὰ καί). But there seems to be a tendency for these and other witnesses to add coordinating conjunctions in this psalm (cf. vv. 1, 31, 38, 40), probably to facilitate the reading of the text. +
On the common construction היה ל to indicate a change of state, see HALOT היה entry 3c. In this verse, the copular היה is probably elided (cf. LXX εἰς εὐλογίαν ἔσται). +
For the change from the verse order of the MT for vv. 28-31, see the note on 28b. +
Some witnesses read ולא instead of just לא (LXX %5Bκαὶ οὐχ%5D, Peshitta %5Bܘܠܐ%5D, one manuscript in Kennicott). There is a tendency to add ''waw'' conjunctions at the beginnings of b-lines (cf. vv. 1, 25, 38, 40). +