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
In v. 2, the demonstrative זאת ("this") is ταῦτα in the LXX (“these things”) which could be rendered “this” ( NETS). The MT's admonition שמעו־זאת is expanded in TgPs as "Hear this instruction %5Bשמעו אחויתא דא%5D, all nations; listen, all inhabitants of the earth."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"' +
In v. 3, the TgPs also expands what appears to be an idiom-like statement (גם־בני אדם גם־בני־איש) as "both the sons of the first Adam and the sons of Jacob, the righteous one and the sinner together."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' The LXX renders this as οἵ τε γηγενεῖς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ("both the earthborn %5Bor primeval men%5D and the sons of men"; NETS). The Syr. has ܢܫܐ ܐ̈ ܪܥܐ ܘܒܢܝ ܝ ܐ̈ ܒܢ ("sons of earth" and "sons of man"), which essentially is a literal translation of the MT's phrase גם־בני אדם גם־בני־איש. "The meaning is 'men of low degree' (i.e., common people) and 'men of high degree' (i.e., people of status)" (Taylor 2020, 187 n. 4). Cf. "Both ordinary people and people of importance;"'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' "both humble and mighty;"'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' "you simple people as well as you lords’ sons."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'. Kraus also explains that "The parallelism with its chiastic effect shows that the construct combination בני אדם can have the meaning 'simple people,’ while בני־איש designates 'lords’ sons,' the 'distinguished people’" %5Bcf. Ps 4:2%5D.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' These readings are clarified by a more specific יחד עשיר ואביון ("rich and poor, together") in v. 3b. +
Furthermore, בני אדם, בני־איש, and עשיר ואביון together create a list of appositives, modifying the identity of כל־ישבי חלד in v. 2. That is, "low and mighty" and "rich and poor" reveal a characteristic/quality (i.e., totality), or identity (in terms of social class), of "all inhabitants of the world". +
In v. 5, the MT begins with the idea of the psalmist, as a wisdom teacher, stretching out (1cs, ''yiqtol'') his ear to a proverb.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Based on Ps 78:1 (האזינה עמי תורתי הטו אזנכם לאמרי־פי), some propose emending the 1cs yiqtol to an imperative followed by "your %5B2mpl%5D ears "/הטו אזנכם, but this has no versional or manuscript support and is unnecessary.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' The LXX has κλινῶ εἰς παραβολὴν τὸ οὖς μου ἀνοίξω ἐν ψαλτηρίῳ τὸ πρόβλημά μου ("I will incline my ear to an illustration; I will work out my problem with a harp," NETS); Syr: ܐܨܠܐ ܐ̈ܕܢܝ ܠܡ̈ܬܠܐ܂ ܘܐܡܠܠ ܒܟܢܪ̈ܐ ܐܘܚ̈ܕܬܝ ("I will incline my ears to proverbs; I will speak my riddles on the harp."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Targ. אצלי למתלא אודני אשרי למפתח בכינורא אוחדתי׃ ("I will incline my ear to a proverb; I will begin to open my riddle to the accompaniment of the lyre").'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Jerome's Hebr.: inclino ad parabulam aurem meam aperiam in cithara enigma meum "I will turn to a parable my ear; I will open with a lyre my enigma." +
In v. 6a, the MT's עון עקבי יסובני, lit. "the iniquity of my heels surrounds me", is unusual and difficult.
* '''OPTION 1''': Taken as "the iniquity of my heels surrounds me" (cf. WYC), v. 6a could be understood as the psalmist's own "false steps and errors of conduct" leading him to evil days, i.e., the time of his ruin.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Similarly (although not identically), the LXX understands it as from the Heb. "heel", having τῆς πτέρνης μου in v. 6a ("The lawlessness at my heel will surround me"; NETS; cf. NKJV; KJ21; LEB). On close pursuit of a sufferer, which includes watching his feet or the souls of their feet (or restricting the movement of his feet), see Job 13:27 (a difficult and debated verse; Seow, 2013, 664–665; cf. MEV: "Why should I fear in the days of evil, when the iniquity of my stalkers surrounds me?").
* '''OPTION 2 (preferred)''': On the other hand, some ancient witnesses and modern translators understand עקב as referring to the psalmist's enemies. Hence, BDB identifies עקב as a verbal adjective, i.e., "over-reacher" (cf. SDBH: "%3D person who takes advantage of other people -- deceiver; persecutor; enemy."; cf. Jer 17:9; עָקֹ֥ב הַלֵּ֛ב מִכֹּ֖ל). This reading is reflected in Syr., which has ܥܘܠܐ ܕܒ̈ܥܠܕܒܒܝ ܟܪܟܢܝ ("the wickedness of my enemies surrounds me"; Taylor 2020, 189). TgPs here is rather expansive, reading (in v. 6b) אלהן דחובת סורחני בסופי יחזרינני ("Why should I fear on the day of the visitation evil, except when guilt for my sin surrounds me at my end?")'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'
Most of modern scholars follow the MT, as is, or revocalize it as עֹקְבַי. E.g., Kraus takes עון עקבי יסובני as "the wickedness of swindlers."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' Revocalizing MT as עֹקְבַי, Craigie translates it as "iniquity of my treacherous foes;"'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' “the iniquity of those who cheat me” %5BESV%5D; “wicked deceivers” %5BNIV%5D.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' On Ps 41:10 (גם־איש שלומי ׀ אשר־בטחתי בו אוכל לחמי הגדיל עלי עקב), Craigie explains "10.c. The expression %5Bעלי עקב%5D is curious, the preceding verb (lit. 'making great') seeming out of place with the noun 'heel'; though the idiom is rare, the sense is clear enough. Dahood translates 'spun slanderous tales,' which is possible, though it rests on rare nuances (if they can be sustained) of both the Hebrew verb and noun in question.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' The Ugaritic evidence in support of the sense 'malign, slander' for Hebrew should be removed from the discussion. In Ugaritic, the noun ʿqb 'heel,' is well established, but the verb ʿqb has the sense 'hinder, hold back.' In the text cited by Dahood, 3 Aqht rev. 19 (%3DCTA.18.i. 19), mʿqbk does not clearly mean 'he who maligns you'; the more obvious sense is 'he who hinders you.'"'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'
Goldingay offers the following explanation: "Verse 5 %5Bv. 6%5D immediately makes clear that the psalm’s question *Why? is not a mere theoretical one but one that relates to fear. The parallelism works by the first colon mentioning fear and trouble (*bad) and raising the question of what the psalmist fears and what kind of trouble is meant and the second colon making this more specific. Verse 5b %5B6b%5D also makes even clearer that the psalmist has in mind circumstances like those regularly presupposed by prayer psalms, whether or not the psalm issues from a current experience like that. The psalmist knows that from time to time it is possible to be under pressure on all sides from the *waywardness of “assailants”—here uniquely ʿăqēbîm from the word for “heel.” These may be people who try to trip others up and use devious methods to do so, or they may be cheats more generally (see 41:9 %5B10%5D)."'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'
Here, the MT's עון עקבי is taken as is, without revocalization, to mean "the iniquity of my persecutors" (cf. BDB; SDBH).
* '''OPTION 1 (preferred)''': Here, v. 6b is taken as a temporal circumstantial clause subordinate to v. 6a (למה אירא; "why should I be afraid?" and v. 7 as a relative clause subordinate to v. 6b.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' Contextually, a subordinate reading makes sense, even if it is not marked grammatically.
* '''OPTION 2''': Vv. 6b and 7 can be taken as temporal circumstantial clauses subordinate to v. 6a (למה אירא; "why should I be afraid?").
* '''OPTION 3''': The LXX and Vulg. treat v. 6b as an asyndetic clause, which "would be a perhaps unexpectedly inelegant construction."'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"'
* '''OPTION 4''': Some translations (e.g., NIV; NKJV; ESV; NASB, etc.) take v. 6b and 6c as temporal circumstantial clauses, subordinate to v. 6a, but v. 7 as being in apposition to עֲקֵבַ֣י. This is possible, but there is nothing in the text suggesting the psalmist's persecutors and those who trust in riches are the same group. NJPS takes “the waywardness of my persecutors that surrounds me” as the obj. of the verb “to be afraid” (cf. LSV), but this "would be an unusual and unexpectedly elegant construction."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"' "Verse 6 %5B7%5D sharpens the point in parallel abbʹaʹ cola, with both the verb and the noun expression in the second colon taking further those in the first."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"'
In v. 8a, the MT's אח לא־פדה יפדה איש is not straightforward, with debates surrounding the meaning and function of אח and the binyan (''qal'' or ''niphal'') of פדה יפדה.
* '''Option 1''': The MT's אח/brother is a subject of פדה יפדה. The MT's אח is represented as ἀδελφὸς ("brother") in the LXX (cf. εβρ, α', σ', ε', ς', Hebr, S, T // assim 16(15): m אַךְ).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Barthélemy sees the MT's אָח as highly probable.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' Similarly, a considerable number of modern translations and scholars adopt this reading.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Notably, the LXX treats “brother” as the subject, but translates the MT's inf. abs. and ''yiqtol'' (פדה יפדה) separately (“a brother does not ransom, shall anyone ransom?”; NETS).
* '''Option 2''': The MT's אח/brother is an object of פדה יפדה. Although Option 1, lit. “a brother cannot redeem a man,” is possible, yet per usual Hebrew idiom(s), this statement should have either איש offering ransom for another איש or איש redeeming his "neighbor"/רֵעֵהוּ or אֶחָד or קְרֹבוֺ (e.g., Deut 15:2; Isa 19:2; Jer 34:14, cf. 15,17; Ezek 38:21; Hag 2:22; on the sequence אִישׁ אָחִיו see, e.g., Gen 9:5; Joel 2:8; Joel 7:10).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Given this idiomatic language, some treat the MT's אח as the fronted accusative (e.g., Ross 2013, 134: "No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him..." ; NASB1977; NASB 1995; NET; KJV; LSB; ELB; EÜ; NBS; RVR95; BTX4; BULG; RUSV; UKR). "The words as they stand assert: a brother (אח, as a prominently placed object, with ''Rebia magnum'', %3D אהיו, cf. Ezek 5:10; Ezek 18:18; Mic 7:6; Mal 1:6) can a man by no means redeem, i.e., men cannot redeem one another. Hengstenberg and Hitzig find the thought that is to be expected in Psa 49:8: the rich ungodly man %5Bfrom v. 7%5D can with all his riches not even redeem another (אח), much less then can he redeem himself, offer a כפר for himself. But if the poet meant to be so understood, he must have written ולא and כפר נפשו. Psa 49:8a and Psa 49:8b bear no appearance of referring to different persons; the second clause is, on the contrary, the necessary supplement of the first: Among men certainly it is possible under some circumstances for one who is delivered over to death to be freed by money, but no כפר (%3D פדיון נפש, Exod 21:30 and frequently) can be given to God (לאלהים)."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'
* '''Option 3''': The MT's אח as an interjection (preferred). But, given its position (clause-initial) and support from several MSS, MT's אח is most likely the onomatopoeic interjection אך (cf. BDB 25a; BHS; cf. Ezek 18:10; Ezek 21:20). Notably, the interjection אך also appears later in v. 16, and is preferred here.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' For the combination of interjection אך with inf. absolute + ''yiqtol'' of פדה, see Num 18:15: אך ׀ פדה תפדה את בכור האדם ואת.
:Furthermore, taking אח as the interjection אך calls for the revocalization of the MT's יפדה (a ''qal yiqtol'') as a ''niphal'' (“redeem himself”; cf. BHS; HALOT).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' The initial difficulty would be that the inf. abs. would also need to be revocalized as a ''niphal'', but on the inf. abs. in ''qal'' with a verbal form in ''niphal'', see GK113w. Notably, the particle לא/"not" would normally stand after the inf. abs., but in v. 8, it comes before it (cf. Gen 3:4; Amos 9:8; Isa 28:28). On balance, אח as an interjection and the revocalized יפדה are preferable.
* '''Option 4''': Taking the MT's אח as interjection, יפדה could be understood as referring to v. 7b as an impersonal subject, e.g., "It %5Btrust in wealth%5D cannot at all redeem a person, give God his ransom."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'
On this verse, see further Exegetical Issue %5B%5BThe Text and Meaning of Ps 49:8a%5D%5D.
In v. 8b, following many Heb. MSS, some add a conjunction "and" before לא/"not". +
Regarding the syntax of vv 8–10, Delitzsch notes that v. 9 should be treated as a parenthetic insertion (BHS suggests it is a gloss): "But how is Psa 49:10 attached to what precedes?"'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Hengstenberg renders it, 'he must for ever give it up, that he should live continually and not see the grave. But according to the syntax, ויהי cannot be attached to וחדל, but only to the futures in Psa 49:8, ranking with which the voluntative ויחי, ut vivat (Ew. 347, a). Thus, therefore, nothing remains but to take Psa 49:9 (which von Ortenberg expunges as a gloss upon Psa 49:8 %5B; cf. BHS%5D) as a parenthesis; the principal clause affirms that no man can give to God a ransom that shall protect another against death, so that this other should still continue (עוד) to live, and that without end (לנצח), without seeing the grave, i.e., without being obliged to go down into the grave." Agreeing with Delitzsch on the parenthetical status of v. 9, it is, however, preferable to see a rich person from v. 8 trying to redeem himself. +
In v. 9a, the MT has יקר/'''“and is costly”'''. The LXX has “or/and the price (καὶ τὴν τιμὴν) of the redeeming of his soul (τῆς λυτρώσεως).”
In v. 9, instead of the MT's נפשם/"their soul" (pl.), the LXX reads τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ/"his soul" (sing.; accordingly, BHS suggests emending the MT to harmonize it with other singular forms in the context). This emendation is preferred here. In Psalm 49, the overall thrust of the speaker's discourse indicates that his focus is on the foolishness of self-reliance and trust in one's own material possessions, not the wealth and good-will of others. Hence, v. 9 should be taken to continue the discourse from v. 8, meaning that the one who tries to redeem himself is trying in vain, the ransom for his (not their) life/souls is costly (cf. v. 10; see also Exegetical Issue on Ps 49:8a: %5B%5BThe Text and Meaning of Ps 49:8a%5D%5D). +
The MT's נפשם/"their soul" (pl.) could reflect the (erroneous, momentary) reading of אח as "brother" instead of אח as the interjection "surely" (i.e., the alternatively (or carelessly) spelled אַךְ; note that eight MSS have אַךְ here instead of אָח; cf. v. 16, which deals with the issue of redemption, uses the root פדה, and features אַךְ: "But/אַךְ God will redeem me from the realm of the dead..." %5BNIV%5D). So, "their soul" would refer to the soul(s) of this brother and the איש he is trying to redeem (per such reading). In other words, the ransom for both of them is too costly. The pl. form of נפש would not be necessary, as the singular could be used in contexts where the plural is meant (e.g., נפשנו תחתיכם; Josh 2:14). Alternatively, the MT's נפשם/"their soul" (pl.) could refer to the individuals (pl.) from vv. 6-7, who trust in their wealth and boast of their riches. But the switch to singular forms in vv. 9b, 10, 11 makes it unlikely. Again, the singular suffix here is preferable.
On a separate note, Raabe observes that in v. 9 "both cola exhibit final rhyme (-am)."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' +
In v. 9b, the MT has “and he ceases (he shall cease) forever” (i.e., attempting redemption). The LXX has καὶ ἐκόπασεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“and he toiled forever”; cf. 10 "And he desisted forever and will yet live completely; he will not see corruption, when he sees wise people die!"; NETS). Syr.: "Labor forever, so that you may live forever and ever and not see corruption." 4Q91 has וחלו (and they grew tired) instead of חדל.
* '''Option 1''': In the MT, the subject of the verb חדל may be פדיון/“ransom/redemption”, which would mean “it has ceased forever”, meaning it should be given up, abandoned. Cf. Goldingay's paraphrase, "The redemption price for their life would be costly, it would be permanently insufficient."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
* '''Option 2''': Alternatively (preferred), the subject of חדל could be the hypothetical individual from v. 8, in which case, v. 9b would mean that he should abandon his efforts trying to offer a ransom for his life.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' He should leave them for good.
Some modern translations render the verb חדל as “and so one ceases to be” (NJPS), but this rendition would be unique for this verb. Note that NJPS treats v. 10 as a question.
** NIV: "the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—"
** NLT: "Redemption does not come so easily, for no one can ever pay enough"
** ESV: "for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice,..."
** NKJV: "For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—"
** NASB: "For the redemption of his soul is priceless, And he should cease imagining forever—"
** NASB 1995; "For the redemption of his soul is costly, And he should cease trying forever—"
** NRSV: "For the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice,..."
** NJPS: “the price of life is too high; and so one ceases to be, forever.” +
In v. 10, the MT has השחת (“the pit”). The LXX renders it as “corruption/decay” (καταφθοράν). Notably, the MT seems to speak of the wasting away of people's form in death. +
In v. 11, some modern translations (e.g., NEB) propose a.) to read MT’s "yiqtol" of ראה as an imperative and b.) to transfer ועזבו לאחרים חילם (v. 11c) to v. 12 (after קראו בשמותם עלי אדמות; cf. BHS), resulting in “But remember this: wise men must die; stupid men, brutish men, all perish %5B...%5D but they must leave their riches to others” (NEB). '"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"' The MT, however, has strong support among ancient witnesses (G, α', σ', ε', ς', Jerome %5Biuxta Hebraeos%5D), and Barthélemy accepts it as highly probable.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"' The Targ. expands the text, reading it as “For the wise one shall see the wicked being judged in Gehenna; the foolish and the demented shall perish together, and leave their wealth to the righteous”.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"' Accordingly, most of the translations do not accept the above (e.g., NEB's) conjectures, rendering v. 11 as follows: “For he sees that even wise people die; The foolish and the stupid alike perish And leave their wealth to others” (NASB); “For we see that the wise die, as the stupid and senseless all perish, leaving their wealth to others” (REB).
* '''Option 1''': Here, vv. 11b and 11c are taken as subordinate to the first half of v. 11a (כי יראה), that is as an object complement of ראה.
* '''Option 2''': Alternatively, vv. 11b and 11c can be taken as independent clauses, as, for example, in ESV, which renders v. 11 as follows: "For he sees that even the wise die; the fool and the stupid alike must perish and leave their wealth to others".
* '''Option 3''': NRSV takes “wise” as the object of ראה and כי as subordinating: “When we look at the wise, they die.” +
In v. 12a, the MT has קִרְבָּם (so, "Their inner thought is that their houses shall be forever, their dwelling-places to all generations"; Perowne, Psalms, 1:399; εβρ, α', σ', ε', Hebr קִרְבָּם; cf. NASB; KJV; ERV; JPS 1917; "Das ist ihr Herz, daß ihre Häuser währen immerdar" %5BLUTH1545%5D; HOF; TOB; SG21; BULG; RUSV; UKR, etc). But the LXX (οἱ τάφοι αὐτῶν), Syr. (ܩܒܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ; this variant would have been produced due to metathesis of rīsh and bēth),'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' and Targ. (קבורתהון) all read “their grave(s).” Hence, Barthélemy (cf. BHS) understands this variant as highly probable with a certain margin of doubt.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' Although the more difficult MT can make sense, reading "their graves" with the LXX, Syr. and TgPs is preferable on contextual grounds. The two words (close in idea/meaning contextually; but not entirely synonymous) are paired up here to form an emphatic point in the teacher's instruction. Additionally, inner- and extra-biblical evidence shows that graves were thought of as deceased's final and "eternal" dwelling places, houses. E.g., Qoh 12:5 describes the deceased going to their eternal home (בית עולמו).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
Goldingay notes that “their inward thought” (MT)/“their grave” (LXX) is "the subject of both cola, which give parallel content to it or offer parallel descriptions of it."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' +
In v. 12c, there is no suffix in the MT on אדמות (G(?), ο', εβρ, α', σ', ε', S, T // assim-ctext: m G(?), θ', Hebr clav אדמותם); the LXX reads τῶν γαιῶν αὐτῶν (“their lands”; "And their graves are their homes forever, their coverts to generation and generation. They named their lands their own"; NETS). Noting that it is impossible to account for the decision to add a suffix of the 3rd person masculine plural, Barthélemy (cf. BHS) understands the MT as highly probable.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' +
In the MT, the clause in v. 12b, lit. means “who called by their name over lands” (but see NJPS, for an unusual rendering, “those once famous on earth”). +
The phrase, "to call by name" usually means "to give a name" or "to call/summon by name." M.S. Smith, however, argued that v. 12b refers to the practice of calling on deceased ancestors.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"' +
On v. 12, see further Exegetical Issue %5B%5BThe Text and Meaning of Ps 49:12%5D%5D. +
In v. 13a, the MT's ביקר has been emended by some to בקר/“cattle” to read “man is as cattle . . ..”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Barthélemy (and many others) argue against this (here and in v. 21) on contextual grounds, seeing the MT as highly probable with a certain margin of doubt (Ps 49,13(12) בִּיקָר {B} MT, G, α', σ', ε', Hebr, S, T // def-int: εβρ; Barthélemy 2005, 192-195; Ps 49,21(20)A בִּיקָר {A}). Although not adopting the proposed emendation, Goldingay notes that "The reader may be invited to see the point underlined by a further implicit paronomasia, human beings bîqār, 'with prestige,' turning out to be like bāqār, 'cattle.'"'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' +
Further, in v. 13a, the MT has בל־ילין (lit. “will not lodge" or "endure”; σ', ε', Hebr, T // assim 21: 4QPsc, G, S). The LXX (and Syr.) read οὐ συνῆκεν (“understands not”; "And a person held in honor did not understand. He resembled senseless beasts and became like them"; NETS). Syr. has ܒܪܢܫܐ ܒܐܝܩܪܗ ܠܐ ܐܬܒܝܢ܂ ܐܠܐ ܐܫܬܠܡ ܠܒܥܝܪܐ ܘܐܬܕܡܝ ܠܗܿ ("A human being does not perceive his own honor; but he is delivered over to the animals and has become like them").'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Contra the MT בל־ילין, Syr. has "does not perceive/understand" (cf. the LXX) due to graphic confusion of lāmadh and bēth. This variant reading could have been also prompted by the refrain in v. 21, where the MT has ולא יבין (in v. 21, both the LXX and Pesh. have "to understand" or "to perceive"). Hence, the LXX and Pesh. could be understood as harmonizing the two refrains. In v. 13, the LXX and Pesh. are also supported by 4Q85 (a proto-MT MS). +