The Differences Between Psalms 14 and 53

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

Psalms 14 and 53 are nearly identical. Some of their differences have to do with individual words:

  • יְהוָה in 14:2, 4, 6, 7 and אֱלֹהִים in 53:3, 5, 6, 7
  • עֲלִילָה in 14:1 and עָוֶל in 53:2
  • הַכֹּל in 14:3 and כֻּלּוֹ in 53:4
  • סָר in 14:3 and סָג in 53:4
  • כָּל in 14:4 and Ø in 53:5

However, there is one place in which the difference between them is more significant:

  • 14:5-6 - שָׁ֤ם ׀ פָּ֣חֲדוּ פָ֑חַד כִּֽי־אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים בְּד֣וֹר צַדִּֽיק׃ עֲצַת־עָנִ֥י תָבִ֑ישׁוּ כִּ֖י יְהוָ֣ה מַחְסֵֽהוּ׃
    • "There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would shame the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge" (ESV).
  • 53:6 - שָׁ֤ם ׀ פָּֽחֲדוּ־פַחַד֮ לֹא־הָ֪יָה֫ פָ֥חַד כִּֽי־אֱלֹהִ֗ים פִּ֭זַּר עַצְמ֣וֹת חֹנָ֑ךְ הֱ֝בִשֹׁ֗תָה כִּֽי־אֱלֹהִ֥ים מְאָסָֽם׃
    • "There they are, in great terror, where there is no terror! For God scatters the bones of him who encamps against you; you put them to shame, for God has rejected them" (ESV).


Scholars have approached these differences in two different ways:

  1. They use the differences to identify/reconstruct an original text.[1]
  2. They understand the differences as contributing to the unique message of each psalm.[2]


Approach #1 views most of the differences between the two psalms as resulting from accidental scribal errors. Approach #2 views the differences as intentional, not accidental, contributing to the unique message of each psalm.

Argument Maps

Reconstruction Approach

The reconstruction approach views certain differences between Psalms 14 and 53, especially those in Psalms 14:5-6 and 53:6, as scribal errors, which are analyzed in service of reconstructing a lost/corrupted source text. 


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Reconstruction]: The differences between Psalms 14 and 53, especially those in Psalms 14:5-6 and 53:6, are to be analyzed in service of reconstructing a lost/corrupted source text.#dispreferred
 + <Aural Similarity>: Certain words/letters in Pss 14:5-6 and 53:6 sound similar and therefore could have been confused (see Baethgen 1904, 158 :C:; Duhm 1899, 40 :C:).#dispreferred
  + [בדור and פזר]: The first consonants of each word (bet and pe) are both labio-dentals; the second consonants (dalet and zayin) are both dentals; and the last consonants of each word (resh and resh) are the same, both sonorants (cf. Blau 2010, 64-65 :M:).#dispreferred
  + [עצת and עצמות]: Regarding the consonants of both words, the first (ayin), second (tsade), and last (taw) are the same (cf. Duhm 1899, 40 :C:).#dispreferred
  + [מחסהו and מאסם]: The first consonants of each word (mem and mem) are the same, both bilabials, and the third consonants (samekh and samekh) are the same, both sibilants (cf. Blau 2010, 65 :M:).#dispreferred
 + <Graphic Similarity>: Certain words/letters in Pss 14 and 53 are graphically similar and therefore could have been confused (see Hupfeld 1855, 291 :C:).#dispreferred
   + [סר and סג]: In the Adon Letter, an Aramaic letter from the late 7th c. BCE, gimel and resh are graphically similar (the leftward extension of gimel is at the top of the letter, like resh, rather than at the bottom as in later scripts; Porten and Yardeni 1986, 6-7). Therefore the resh of סר "turn away" (Ps 14:3) and the gimel of סג "slide back" (Ps 53:4) could have been confused. #dispreferred
  + <LXX>: Regarding the 2mp hiphil תָבִישׁוּ (Ps 14:6) and 2ms hiphil הֱבִשֹׁתָה (Ps 53:6), the LXX of Ps 53(52):6 preserves the original reading — the 3p κατῃσχύνθησαν — reflecting a source which read הבישׁו (cf. Baethgen 1904, 38 :C:).#dispreferred
   + <תָבִישׁוּ in Ps 14:6>: Because the hiphil form of בושׁ only collocates with personal objects, never factual objects (cf. Baethgen 1904, 37-38 :C:; Duhm 1899, 40 :C:), the hiphil תָבִישׁוּ "you put to shame" in Ps 14:6 cannot take the factual object עֲצַת־עָנִי "insight of the oppressed" and so represents a corrupted reading.#dispreferred
   + <הֱבִשֹׁתָה in Ps 53:6>: .#dispreferred
 - <Oral Tradition>: Rather than one psalm being literarily dependent on the other or both psalms being dependent on another written source, the parallels between Pss 14 and 53 "derive from traditional language and units of language available to the psalmist(s) within their living repository of traditions" (Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 120 :M:).
 - <יהוה and אלהים>: The substitution of אלהים (Ps 53) for יהוה (Ps 14), or vice-versa, cannot be explained as the result of scribal error, rather it suggests intentional editorial activity.


Argument Mapn0ReconstructionThe differences between Psalms 14 and 53, especially those in Psalms 14:5-6 and 53:6, are to be analyzed in service of reconstructing a lost/corrupted source text.n1בדור and פזרThe first consonants of each word (bet and pe) are both labio-dentals; the second consonants (dalet and zayin) are both dentals; and the last consonants of each word (resh and resh) are the same, both sonorants (cf. Blau 2010, 64-65 🄼).n5Aural SimilarityCertain words/letters in Pss 14:5-6 and 53:6 sound similar and therefore could have been confused (see Baethgen 1904, 158 🄲; Duhm 1899, 40 🄲).n1->n5n2עצת and עצמותRegarding the consonants of both words, the first (ayin), second (tsade), and last (taw) are the same (cf. Duhm 1899, 40 🄲).n2->n5n3מחסהו and מאסםThe first consonants of each word (mem and mem) are the same, both bilabials, and the third consonants (samekh and samekh) are the same, both sibilants (cf. Blau 2010, 65 🄼).n3->n5n4סר and סגIn the Adon Letter, an Aramaic letter from the late 7th c. BCE, gimel and resh are graphically similar (the leftward extension of gimel is at the top of the letter, like resh, rather than at the bottom as in later scripts; Porten and Yardeni 1986, 6-7). Therefore the resh of סר "turn away" (Ps 14:3) and the gimel of סג "slide back" (Ps 53:4) could have been confused. n6Graphic SimilarityCertain words/letters in Pss 14 and 53 are graphically similar and therefore could have been confused (see Hupfeld 1855, 291 🄲).n4->n6n5->n0n6->n0n7LXXRegarding the 2mp hiphil תָבִישׁוּ (Ps 14:6) and 2ms hiphil הֱבִשֹׁתָה (Ps 53:6), the LXX of Ps 53(52):6 preserves the original reading — the 3p κατῃσχύνθησαν — reflecting a source which read הבישׁו (cf. Baethgen 1904, 38 🄲).n7->n0n8תָבִישׁוּ in Ps 14:6Because the hiphil form of בושׁ only collocates with personal objects, never factual objects (cf. Baethgen 1904, 37-38 🄲; Duhm 1899, 40 🄲), the hiphil תָבִישׁוּ "you put to shame" in Ps 14:6 cannot take the factual object עֲצַת־עָנִי "insight of the oppressed" and so represents a corrupted reading.n8->n7n9הֱבִשֹׁתָה in Ps 53:6.n9->n7n10Oral TraditionRather than one psalm being literarily dependent on the other or both psalms being dependent on another written source, the parallels between Pss 14 and 53 "derive from traditional language and units of language available to the psalmist(s) within their living repository of traditions" (Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 120 🄼).n10->n0n11יהוה and אלהיםThe substitution of אלהים (Ps 53) for יהוה (Ps 14), or vice-versa, cannot be explained as the result of scribal error, rather it suggests intentional editorial activity.n11->n0


Text-as-Received Approach (preferred)

The text-as-received approach views certain differences between Psalms 14 and 53 as purposeful contributions to the message of each psalm. 


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Text-as-Received]: The differences between Psalms 14 and 53, especially those in Psalms 14:5-6 and 53:6, are to be treated as purposeful, contributing to the unique message of each psalm.
 + <יהוה in Ps 14>: The use of the divine name יהוה in Ps 14 foregrounds his "character of mercy toward the righteous" (Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 158 :M:).
 + <אלהים in Ps 53>: "The exclusive use of אלהים within Ps 53, as well as the downplay of human reference and the foregrounding of divine reference, serves as a means to bring focus to bear on the sovereignty of אלהים  over the wicked" (Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 115 :M:).
 + <The "Righteous">: The role of the "righteous" is different and more prominent in Ps 14 than in Ps 53.
  + [Prominence of the "Righteous"]: Ps 14:5-6 includes three mentions of the "righteous" group — צַדִּיק "righteous"; עָנִי "oppressed"; and a 3ms suffix "his" on מַחְסֵהוּ — whereas Ps 53:6 includes two — a 2ms suffix "you" on חֹנָךְ and הֱבִשֹׁתָה "you put to shame."
  + [Differing Roles of the "Righteous"]: In Ps 14 God is "with the righteous group" (v. 5); the "righteous" are those who are "oppressed" (v. 6). In Ps 53 the "righteous" are not described.
 + <The "Evildoers">: The role of the "evildoers" is different and more prominent in Ps 53 than in Ps 14.
  + [Prominence of the "Evildoers"]: Ps 53:6 includes two mentions of the evildoers — חֹנָךְ "those encamping against (Israel)" and a 3mp suffix "them" on מְאָסָם — whereas Ps 14:6 includes one — תָבִישׁוּ "(evildoers) would put to shame."
  + [Differing Roles of the "Evildoers"]: In Ps 14:6, the "evildoers" are those who "would put to shame the insight of the oppressed," whereas in Psalm 53:6 their bones are scattered and they are rejected by God.


Argument Mapn0Text-as-ReceivedThe differences between Psalms 14 and 53, especially those in Psalms 14:5-6 and 53:6, are to be treated as purposeful, contributing to the unique message of each psalm.n1Prominence of the "Righteous"Ps 14:5-6 includes three mentions of the "righteous" group — צַדִּיק "righteous"; עָנִי "oppressed"; and a 3ms suffix "his" on מַחְסֵהוּ — whereas Ps 53:6 includes two — a 2ms suffix "you" on חֹנָךְ and הֱבִשֹׁתָה "you put to shame."n7The "Righteous"The role of the "righteous" is different and more prominent in Ps 14 than in Ps 53.n1->n7n2Differing Roles of the "Righteous"In Ps 14 God is "with the righteous group" (v. 5); the "righteous" are those who are "oppressed" (v. 6). In Ps 53 the "righteous" are not described.n2->n7n3Prominence of the "Evildoers"Ps 53:6 includes two mentions of the evildoers — חֹנָךְ "those encamping against (Israel)" and a 3mp suffix "them" on מְאָסָם — whereas Ps 14:6 includes one — תָבִישׁוּ "(evildoers) would put to shame."n8The "Evildoers"The role of the "evildoers" is different and more prominent in Ps 53 than in Ps 14.n3->n8n4Differing Roles of the "Evildoers"In Ps 14:6, the "evildoers" are those who "would put to shame the insight of the oppressed," whereas in Psalm 53:6 their bones are scattered and they are rejected by God.n4->n8n5יהוה in Ps 14The use of the divine name יהוה in Ps 14 foregrounds his "character of mercy toward the righteous" (Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 158 🄼).n5->n0n6אלהים in Ps 53"The exclusive use of אלהים within Ps 53, as well as the downplay of human reference and the foregrounding of divine reference, serves as a means to bring focus to bear on the sovereignty of אלהים  over the wicked" (Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 115 🄼).n6->n0n7->n0n8->n0


Conclusion (A)

One's reading of Psalms 14 and 53 will be determined, at least in part, by their preferred approach. If the reconstruction approach is adopted, one will view the differences between the psalms as a stepping stone to a lost source text. The result of this approach is that either of the psalms are subject to emendations at various points. On the other hand, the text-as-received approach does not use the psalms' differences to recover a lost source text, rather the differences are viewed as purposeful, contributing to the unique message of each psalm.

While not denying the possibility of textual corruption in certain places (e.g., the omission of כָּל at Ps 53:5), the reconstruction approach as a whole does not adequately account for the differences between the psalms. Too much is made of the psalms' supposed interdependence to the neglect of their independence. We prefer instead the text-as-received approach in which the psalms' differences, especially the substantive difference at Ps 14:5-6 and Ps 53:6, are seen as purposeful and indispensable for understanding the unique message of each psalm. The unique messages of each psalm are outlined below:

Psalm 14

  • The use of the divine name יהוה foregrounds YHWH's "character of mercy toward the righteous."[3]
  • The role and prominence of the "righteous" are greater in Ps 14:5-6 than in Ps 53:6.

Psalm 53

  • "The exclusive use of אלהים within Ps 53, as well as the downplay of human reference and the foregrounding of divine reference, serves as a means to bring focus to bear on the sovereignty of אלהים over the wicked."[4]
  • The role and prominence of the "evildoers" is greater in Ps 53:6 than in Ps 14:5-6.

Although the graphic similarity between certain words/letters (e.g., סר in Ps 14:3 and סג in Ps 53:4) could explain the psalms' divergent readings, this is not the best explanation. The psalms' differences are better explained as purposeful, each contributing to the unique message of each psalm. For this reason, we give the text-as-received approach a confidence rating of A.

Research

Translations

Ancient

Modern

Secondary Literature

Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Briggs. 1906. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. 2014. The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Hupfeld, Hermann. 1855. Die Psalmen. Vol. 1. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes.
Tate, Marvin E. 1998. Psalms 51-100. WBC 20. Dallas, TX: Word Books.
Wardlaw, Terrance Randall. 2015. Elohim within the Psalms: Petitioning the Creator to Order Chaos in Oral-Derived Literature. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark.
Weiser, Artur. 1962. The Psalms: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

References

53:5

  1. ↑ See Briggs and Briggs 1906, 104; Hupfeld 1855, 291; Weiser 1880.
  2. ↑ See Tanner 2014, 464; Tate 1998, 41.
  3. ↑ Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 158.
  4. ↑ Wardlaw, Jr. 2015, 115.