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
v. 11a – This alternative involves reading קַרְנִ֑י as the subject of a 3fs verb (as the LXX's ὑψωθήσεται and both of Jerome's translations – ''exaltabitur''), rather than the object of a 2ms verb (as indicated in the pointing of both Eastern and Western Syriac texts and the conjugation of Targum Psalms' וזקיפתא).
The middle-passive reading of the European translations would require the qal תָּרֹם/תָּרוּם, where the Tiberian evidence is unambiguously intended as a hiphil (see L, A and Sassoon), with Kennicott 173 even containing the mater yod: ותרים (see also the ketiv/qere in Ps 89:18 for the same issue). For the sake of parsimony, we have offered the revocalized תָּרֹם as an alternative. +
v. 12b – The alternative adverbial reading of מְרֵעִ֗ים represents Targum Psalms' infinitive לאבאשא. The apposition (restrictive relative) is found in the other ancient versions, and discussed in GKC §132b.
The alternative qatal 3fs verb שמעה is found in 1Q10, presumably read with the singular ear (אָזְנִי), and in parallel with the singular עֵינִ֗י in the A-line. +
v. 6 – The exclamative מָה ("How...!") could be considered elided in the second clause, as read by the CEB: ''How magnificent are your works, Lord, '''how''' profound your thoughts!'' (cf. the DHH, EÜ, NIV, ZÜR). A second overt מָה is not attested in any Hebrew manuscripts or ancient versions and has not been represented as an alternative in light of the constituent order of the second clause (which is not verb-initial, which would be expected with an elided constituent such as an exclamative marker governing the entire clause; see Miller 2007). +
Many interpretations of the MT treat בַּ֝לֹּתִ֗י as the 1cs of בלל. This reading is difficult, however, since qal בלל is always transitive elsewhere, so the passive of the CSB, CEB, KJV, NASB, NJPS, NET, REB, SG21 and TOB is problematic. +
v. 11b – The preferred reading of v. 11b involves revocalizing בַּ֝לֹּתִ֗י as an infinitive construct, בְּלֹתִי, from בלה, "my old age" (BDB), as found in the LXX, Symmachus and both of Jerome's translations. The emended prepositional phrase, as found in Symmachus, is also preferred over the MT's בְּ, in light of the similes found elsewhere (see, e.g., Ps 52:10), the previous line, and the easy בְּ/כְּ interchange (cf. Aquila's ὡς ἀτμὸν for the MT's בַּהֶ֥בֶל in Ps 78:33; the LXX and Syr.' ἐν τῇ γῇ and ܒܐܪܥܐ for the MT's כְּ֝אֶ֗רֶץ in Ps 78:69; and TgPss' היך בנפשיה for בְּנַפְשׁ֑וֹ in Ps 105:22). Due to the fragmentary nature of Symmachus (ἡ παλαίωσίς μου ὡς ἐλαία εὐθαλής), it may be read as a verbless clause (requiring also the revocalization of the infinitive—see above—and the emendation of בְּ with כְּ). We have followed this verbless clause as our preferred syntax. Furthermore, we have preferred to read רַעֲנָֽן as the adjectival complement of the copula, "to be," rather than modifying שֶׁמֶן, which never occurs elsewhere in the Bible. For a full discussion of the issue, see the exegetical issue %5B%5BThe_Grammar_and_Meaning_of_Ps_92:11b%5D%5D. +
v. 1 – The alternative construct chain is represented by the genitive found in the LXX (Ψαλμὸς ᾠδῆς "A psalm of a song"), Symmachus (ᾆσμα ψαλμοῦ "a song of a psalm," from Syro-Hex. ܙܡܝܪܬܐ ܕܡܙܡܘܪܐ), and Jerome, both Gall. and Hebr. (''Psalmus cantici'' "a psalm of a song"), which does not seem to be followed, however, by modern translations.
Targum Psalm's conjunction (שבחא ושירא) has not been represented as an alternative, though it is followed by the DHH ("Salmo y cántico para el sábado"). +
v. 5 – There is significant variation between the singular and plural interpretation of both פעלך and מעשׂי/ה.
Beginning with פעלך, since it is a pausal form (%5Bhttp://www.pericope.net/Assets/pericope_texts/Pausal_Forms_Revell/PausalTNK.pdf Revell 2004%5D), it is most plausible that the plural readings have crept in because of the long vowel. See, e.g., the Syr. ܒܥܒ̈ܕܝܟ "your works," as well as the ''plene yod'' פעליך in many medieval Hebrew manuscripts (see VTH, 388), including the Babylonian manuscripts Neubauer 2484; BL Or 1477 and JTS 631. The preferred singular is attested in the LXX's ἐν τῷ ποιήματί σου, Jerome's ''in opere tuo'', and TgPs's בעובדך.
On the מעשה/מעשי interchange, the ''he'' (and thus singular) is attested in the Syr. ܒܥܒܕ "work", as well as 1Q10, 4Q84, the majority of the attested Babylonian tradition (Berlin QU 680; JTS 611; JTS 631;
Neubauer 2484; and BL Or 1477), and a number of other medieval manuscripts (VTH, 388). It could be posited, however, that the yod found in the Tiberian MT is assimilated to the following yod in יָדֶ֣יךָ, such that the diversely-attested and less-expected reading מַעֲשֵׂה has been preferred.
Note also that
* there is a strong tendency in the tradition to change the singular to plural (see, e.g., 11Q5, which does this systematically throughout the psalter), and
* the plural מַעֲשֶׂ֣יךָ in v. 6 may also have influenced the reading of the plural here. +
v. 8a – The second infinitival clause representing the verb צוץ in Symmachus' ܘܟܕ ܡܗ̈ܒܒܝܢ ("and when they flourish") is insightful for the intended meaning (see the %5B%5Bhttps://psalms.scriptura.org/w/The_Syntax_of_Ps_92:8%7Cexegetical issue%5D%5D), but is unlikely a morphological variant, and has thus not been included as a valid alternative. See also the attempt in Hebr. to level the syntax of the two clauses with two finite verbs (germinaverunt impii quasi faenum et floruerunt omnes qui operantur iniquitatem ut contererentur usque in sempiternum), which cannot be derived textually from בִּפְרֹ֤חַ.
For the elided subject, see also Job 27:14: ø אִם־יִרְבּ֣וּ בָנָ֣יו לְמוֹ־חָ֑רֶב "If his children are multiplied, it is for the sword" (ESV); cf. Saadia's פאנה (Kafaḥ 1966, 213) >> זאֹת הָֽיְתָה (Delitzsch 1877, 68) "this was/is"; Ḥakham's (1979, 181) משׁמעות תאור הפעלה ... זוֹ "the sense of the description of the action... this"; %5Bhttps://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Psalms.92.8.1?lang%3Dbi&with%3Dall&lang2%3Den Rashi%5D, however, considers a nominal form of "their flourishing" to be the subject (שהפרחת' אינה אלא להשמידם). +
v. 9 – The status of מָר֗וֹם has been interpreted either as a divine epithet (≈ exalted one)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' or as an adverbial (preferred)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'. The lexicons recognize both functions of מָר֗וֹם as "high, meaning lofty" (HALOT) and "height> divine title, "Exalted One" (DCH). The ancient versions, likewise, exhibit the same diversity.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
In light of the similar constructions found in 2 Kgs 19:22 (%3D Isa 37:23), Isa 40:26, and other instances with the verb שׁכן, "to dwell," we have favored the adverbial reading of the nominal here. +
The verbal phrase of the previous line (וַתָּ֣רֶם) has been understood as elided by the LXX (καὶ τὸ γῆράς μου ἐν ἐλαίῳ πίονι) and both of Jerome's translations (Gall.: et senectus mea in misericordia uberi; Iuxta Heb.: et senecta mea in oleo uberi), with "my old age" as the object. The difficulties here are semantic, however, as "raising up %3D bestowing strength" is always accompanied by קֶרֶן. +
One solution (see %5Bhttps://www.sefaria.org/Ibn_Ezra_on_Psalms.92.11.3?lang%3Dbi Ibn Ezra%5D; Ḥakham (1979, 182); Hupfeld (1862 28-29); %5Bhttps://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_Psalms.92.11.1?lang%3Dbi Radak%5D; Tate (1998, 462-463)) is to understand קַרְנִ֑י as elided and בַּ֝לֹּתִ֗י can therefore be read as transitive. The primary issue here is the rarity of object gapping (O'Connor 1980, 404-405), and where it is attested, it is backwards gapping, so the syntax becomes slightly questionable. +
Another alternative is the emendation of the 2ms with 1cs suffix, found in both Targum Psalms' רביתא יתי and the Syr. ܘܨܒܥܬܢܝ ('you have anointed me'), followed by the German and Spanish translations. While attractive, there is no Hebrew manuscript evidence for such a reading, so it is probably contextually derived.
Again, for a fuller discussion of this line, see the %5B%5Bhttps://psalms.scriptura.org/w/The_Grammar_and_Meaning_of_Ps_92:11b%7Cexegetical issue%5D%5D. +
The preferred two separate clauses are found in the ESV, DHH, RVC. See the symmetry of the two locative prepositional phrases, which indicate the status of שְׁ֭תוּלִים בְּבֵ֣ית יְהוָ֑ה as an independent clause. For a similar, future referring verbless clause with both subject and copula elided, see Ps 1:4b.
For a similar shift from singular צָדִּיק to collective reference, see Job 36:7 – לֹֽא־יִגְרַ֥ע מִצַּדִּ֗יק עֵ֫ינָ֥יו וְאֶת־מְלָכִ֥ים לַכִּסֵּ֑א וַיֹּשִׁיבֵ֥ם לָ֝נֶ֗צַח וַיִּגְבָּֽהוּ (cf. Ps 78:1-4). Alternatively, for lack of a subject, TgPs provides בנוי ("his sons"). +
v. 15a – Note that an addition of the adjective טובה is found in 4Q84's עוד ינבון בשיבה טובה and that the LXX reads דְּשֵׁנִ֖ים as modifying בְּשֵׂיבָ֑ה (ἔτι πληθυνθήσονται ἐν γήρει πίονι), requiring the feminine singular form דְּשֵׁנָה, neither of which are present in any (other) Hebrew manuscript evidence. +
v. 16a – The Syr ܘܢܚܘܘܢ ܕܬܪܝܨ ܗܘ ܡܪܝܐ ܥܫܝܢܐ ܘܠܝܬ ܒܗ ܥܘܠܐ ("They will declare that the Lord is upright; he is strong, and there is no iniquity in him" Taylor 2020, 385) is best understood as a paraphrase in the case of both the finite ܘܢܚܘܘܢ for the MT's infinitive לְ֭הַגִּיד and the adj. ܘܢܚܘܘܢ for the appositive צ֝וּרִ֗י. (See also the REB's finite "They declare that the Lord is just," missing the semantic connection of purpose from the preceding clause.)
Other translations, such as the NJPS ("attesting that the LORD is upright," cf. the DHH, NIV, TOB) and Jerome's and Symmachus' participles (''adnuntiantes quia rectus Dominus''; ἀπαγγέλλοντες ὅτι ὀρθὸς κύριος) are also cautious with the more natural purpose reading (as the CEB's "in order to proclaim," cf. the CSB, ELB, ESV, KJV, NASB, RVA, SG21, ZÜR). The NET's result ("So they proclaim...") is also plausible. Nevertheless, in light of the לְהַגִיד inclusio with v. 3, we have preferred an impersonal reading of the infinitive (cf. Gen 33:10; Ps 42:4; 119:4; 2 Chr 35:16; see Notarius and Atkinson, forthcoming).
v. 16b – As for the ''qere''/''ketiv'' question (עלתה vocalized as עְָלֲתָה), the dozens of manuscripts cited in Kennicott (389) with the consonantal עולתה removes any doubt about the intended text.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
Despite the temptation to read as a topic-comment structure with עַוְלָתָה as the subject ("injustice is not in him"), the presentational is preferred, explicitly followed by the Peshitta's use of ܠܝܬ and לית in the Peshitta (ܘܠܝܬ ܒܗ ܥܘܠܐ; "there is no iniquity in him," Taylor 2020, 385) and Targum Psalms (לית עוולתא ביה; "there is no unrighteousness in him," Stec 2004, 177). Likewise, neither the LXX nor Jerome read ἀδικία or iniquitas as the subject: although presentational copular clauses and topic-comment constructions are morphosyntactically ambiguous in Greek and Latin, the post-verbal position in both instances here points to the presentational reading. For another existential with לֹֹא (in place of the expected אֵין), see Job 29:12 (וְֽלֹא־עֹזֵ֥ר לֽוֹ).
Alternative interpretations of the grammar include reading שְׁ֭תוּלִים בְּבֵ֣ית יְהוָ֑ה either as an adverbial of manner or as a subject nominal.
• The adverbial reading of שְׁ֭תוּלִים בְּבֵ֣ית יְהוָ֑ה, found in the CSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NJPS, SG21, TOB (read as a singular participle in both of these French versions) and supported by GKC §118p.
• The subject reading is provided by the Syr. headless relative clause ܕܢܨܝܒܝܢ ܒܒܝܬܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ ("those who are planted in the house of the Lord," Taylor 2020, 385) and the nominative πεφυτευμένοι in the LXX's πεφυτευμένοι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ κυρίου (cf. also the CEB, KJV, and the German translations). +
'''V. 2c הַלְלוּ־יָהּ''' The positioning of the halleluyah-subscript in v. 2c varies in different textual traditions. For example, the LXX and Jerome's Hebr. take the halleluyah from the end of the previous psalm (116) as the beginning of Ps 117, and the halleluyah at the end of Ps 117 as the beginning of Ps 118. This is part of larger compositional issues for the whole section of the psalter known as the Egyptian Hallel (Pss 113-118) (for detailed discussion of these textual and compositional issues see Hays 1999,145-156 and Hossfeld-Zenger 2011, 222, 178-179, 39-41). +
1b '''הָאֻמִּים''':
The form כָּל־הָאֻמִּֽים ('''all peoples''') is only attested here in the Hebrew Bible, leading some to emend it to the more common form כָּל־לְאֻמִּֽים, with more or less the same meaning of all peoples. For example, Kraus argues that "since אמים occurs only here in the OT (otherwise אֻמּוֹת), an emendation of the word should probably be made. Most often לְאֻמִּים is given as parallel to גוים, this emendation is to be preferred" (Kraus 1993, 390). Indeed, the word אֻמָּה only appears in two other places, and in both case it has the feminine plural form of אֻמּוֹת (Gen 25:16 לְאֻמֹּתָֽם, Num 25:15 אֻמּ֥וֹת).
However, it is simpler and certainly plausible to read this form simply as an alternative plural form of the same lexeme using the masculine plural ending ים- (cf. HALOT).
A number of points increase the plausibility of this position.
1. There are a number of well-attested cases in Biblical Hebrew where the same lexeme can occur with both masculine or feminine plural noun-endings. Consider, for example, חלון ("window") which out of 17 occurrences in the plural appears 8 times with a masculine form and 9 times with a feminine form (1 Kings 6:4; Jer. 9:21; 22:14; Ezek. 40:16, 22, 25, 29, 33, 36; 41:16, 26; Joel 2:9; Song 2:9) (cf. JM89a). See also Hardy ("The Various Uses of the Plural Form," forthcoming), who cites this very case—along with the תַּנִּים/תַּנּוֹת ("jackal") interchange—to illustrate that "Some lexemes exhibit variant plural forms."
2. The masculine form may be due to Aramaic influence, following the masculine plural ending (אֻמַּיָּא) of the fem. noun אֻמָּה (e.g. Dan 3:4, 7, 31; 5:19; 6:26; 7:14; Ez 4:10) (Allen 2002, 157). It is noteworthy that there is already another common Aramaism in the psalm (שׁבח in v. 1a - Allen 2002, 157).
3. Kennicott mentions one manuscript which reads אמות, which would suggest the correct lexeme is in view (VTH vol. 4: 412).
4. V. 1 constitutes a clear parallel with the phrase כל האמים in v. 1b clearly matching the phrase כל גוים in v. 1a. It is possible that an alternative masculine ending ים- was used instead of the most standard ות- for poetic reasons (e.g. rhyme or gender parallelism matching גוים).
An interesting side note is that the MT does have four occurrences of the form בַּל־אֻמִּים (Pss 44:15; 57:10; 104:4; 149:7). However, each of these occurs in clear parallelism with either בָּעַמִּים or בַּגּוֹיִם, and should be read instead as בַּלְאֻמִּים (for more on this unusual form, see %5B%5BPsalm 44 Verse-by-Verse #15%5D%5D).
For alternative plural "ears" see Kennicott 73, 74, 76, 133, 172, 192, 266 (VTH vol. 4, 373), אזניכם, as well as TgPss (אודניכון) and the Syr. (ܐ̈ܕܢܝܟܘܢ). 11Q6, however, lacks any sign of the plural yod, with אוזנכמה. Although the semantic result is plural "ears" in any case— indicated by plural addressees—it is not unheard of to refer to a group's hearing with a singular collective (see also Isa 55:3; Jer 9:19; 25:4; 35:15). +
'''v. 68''' – On the appositives אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט יְהוּדָ֑ה אֶֽת־הַ֥ר צִ֝יּ֗וֹן, see Fassberg (2019, §122). +