About the Grammar Layer

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Expand" to the right.)

The grammatical diagram provides a way to visualise how different parts of a sentence work together. It represents the “surface-level” grammar, or morphosyntax, of a sentence. Morphosyntax includes both the form of words (morphology) and their placement in the sentence (syntax). This approach to visualising the text, based on the Reed-Kellogg diagramming method, places the grammatical subject in one slot, the verb in another slot, and modifiers and connectives in other slots.

For a detailed description of our method, see the Grammar Creator Guidelines.

Grammar Visuals for Psalm 119

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Grammar Legend" below.)

Visualization	Description
	The clause is represented by a horizontal line with a vertical line crossing through it, separating the subject and the verb.
	The object is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause. Infinitives and participles may also have objects. If the direct object marker (d.o.m.) is present in the text, it appears in the diagram immediately before the object. If the grammar includes a secondary object, the secondary object will appear after the object, separated by another vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause.
	The subject complement follows the verb (often omitted in Hebrew) separated with a line leaning toward the right. It can be a noun, a whole prepositional phrase or an adjective. The later two appear modifying the complement slot.
	When a noun further describes or renames the object, it is an object complement. The object complement follows the object separated by a line leaning toward the right.
	In a construct chain, the noun in the absolute form modifies the noun in the construct form.
	Participles are indicated in whatever position in the clause they are in with a curved line before the participle. Participles can occur as nominal, where they take the place of a noun, predicate, where they take the place of a verb, or attributive, where they modify a noun or a verb similar to adjectives or adverbs.
	Infinitives are indicated by two parallel lines before the infinitive that cross the horizontal line. Infinitive constructs can appear as the verb in an embedded clause. Infinitive absolutes typically appear as an adverbial.
	The subject of the infinitive often appears in construct to it. In this situation, the infinitive and subject are diagrammed as a construct chain.
	The object of the infinitive is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the infinitival clause.
	Modifiers are represented by a solid diagonal line from the word they modify. They can attach to verbs, adjectives, or nouns. If modifying a verb or adjective, it is an adverb, but if modifying a noun, it is an adjective, a quantifier, or a definite article. If an adverb is modifying a modifier, it is connected to the modifier by a small dashed horizontal line.
	Adverbials are indicated by a dashed diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. These are nouns or infinitives that function adverbially (modifying either a verb or a participle), but are not connected by a preposition.
	Prepositional phrases are indicated by a solid diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. The preposition is to the left of the diagonal line and the dependent of the preposition is on the horizontal line. They can modify verbs (adverbial) or nouns (adjectival).
	Embedded clauses are indicated by a "stand" that looks like an upside-down Y. The stand rests in the grammatical position that the clause fulfills. Extending from the top of the stand is a horizontal line for the clause. If introduced by a complementizer, for example כִּי, the complementizer appears before the stand. Embedded clauses can stand in the place of any noun.
	When clauses are joined by a conjunction, they are compound clauses. These clauses are connected by a vertical dotted line. The conjunction is placed next to the dotted line.
	Within a clause, if two or more parts of speech are compound, these are represented by angled lines reaching to the two compound elements connected by a solid vertical line. If a conjunction is used, the conjunction appears to the left of the vertical line. Almost all parts of speech can be compound.
	Subordinate clauses are indicated by a dashed line coming from the line dividing the subject from the predicate in the independent clause and leading to the horizontal line of the subordinate clause. The subordinating conjunction appears next to the dashed line.
	Relative clauses also have a dashed line, but the line connects the antecedent to the horizontal line of the relative clause. The relative particle appears next to the dashed line.
	Sentence fragments are represented by a horizontal line with no vertical lines. They are most frequently used in superscriptions to psalms. They are visually similar to discourse particles and vocatives, but most often consist of a noun phrase (that does not refer to a person or people group) or a prepositional phrase.
	In the body of the psalm, a horizontal line by itself (with no modifiers or vertical lines) can indicate either a discourse particle or a vocative (if the word is a noun referring to a person or people group). A discourse particle is a conjunction or particle that functions at the discourse level, not at the grammatical level. Vocatives can appear either before or after the clause addressed to them, depending on the word order of the Hebrew.
	Apposition is indicated by an equal sign equating the two noun phrases. This can occur with a noun in any function in a sentence.

Hebrew text colors
Default preferred text	The default preferred reading is represented by a black line. The text of the MT is represented in bold black text.
Dispreferred reading	The dispreferred reading is an alternative interpretation of the grammar, represented by a pink line. The text of the MT is represented in bold pink text, while emendations and revocalizations retain their corresponding colors (see below).
Emended text	Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold blue text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
Revocalized text	Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold purple text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
(Supplied elided element)	Any element that is elided in the Hebrew text is represented by bold gray text in parentheses.
( )	The position of a non-supplied elided element is represented by empty black parentheses. For example, this would be used in the place of the noun when an adjective functions substantivally or in the place of the antecedent when a relative clause has an implied antecedent.

Gloss text colors
Gloss used in the CBC	The gloss used in the Close-but-Clear translation is represented by bold blue text.
Literal gloss >> derived meaning	A gloss that shows the more literal meaning as well as the derived figurative meaning is represented in blue text with arrows pointing towards the more figurative meaning. The gloss used in the CBC will be bolded.
Supplied elided element	The gloss for a supplied elided element is represented in bold gray text.

v. 1

The appositive reading is supported by the LXX's οἱ πορευόμενοι ("those who walk") and TgPss' repetition of the particle ד in טוביהון דשלימי אורחא דמהלכין באוריתא דייי ("The goodness of the perfect of way, of those who walk in the way of YHWH"). It is also functionally compatible with the relativizer in Jerome's "Beati immaculati in via qui ambulant in lege Domini."

v. 2

The emendation follows 11Q5's and Kennicott 245's עֵת in place of לֵב, possibly as a harmonization with v. 20.
The alternative relative clause would include the MT's בְּכָל־לֵ֥ב יִדְרְשֽׁוּהוּ clause (as GKC §116, cf. Ps 91:1): The blessings of the keepers of his statues, who seek him with all [their] heart. Such is hinted at by Symmachus' participle ἐκζητοῦντες. "Another explanation: Happy are those who keep His testimonies with all their heart, and happy are those who seek Him with all their heart" (Ḥakham 2003, 210).

v. 3

The particle אַף is absent in Syr. and scopes over the whole clause in TgPs, hence the preferred discourse particle reading. Even the rendering They also do no iniquity (Ḥakham 2003, 210; cf. ESV, NASB, KJV) reads more naturally as clause-level, rather than modifying only the verb, i.e., they do X and also do Y.

v. 4

The alternative represents the Syr. reading (ܐܢܬ ܦܩܕܬ ܕܢܛܪܘܢ ܦܘܩ̈ܕܢܝܟ ܪ̈ܘܪܒܐܝܬ) as ... "You have commanded that your commandments be carefully observed" (Taylor 2020, 405), followed by JPS 1985, CSB and NET). Ḥakham elaborates, "Another explanation: You have commanded people to keep Your precepts diligently" (2003, 210). Fassberg claims that the object of an infinitival phrase, preceding the infinitive, is possible on rare occasions due to Aramaic influence (2019, §211; המושא עשוי לבוא לפני המקור הנטוי, כנראה בהשפעת הארמית); cf. 2 Chr 31:10 (וַ֠יֹּאמֶר מֵהָחֵ֨ל הַתְּרוּמָ֜ה לָבִ֣יא בֵית־יְהוָ֗ה); 2 Chr 36:19 (וְכָל־כְּלֵ֥י מַחֲמַדֶּ֖יהָ לְהַשְׁחִֽית), but also Job 31:1 (אֲשֶׁר־מָאַ֥סְתִּי אֲבוֹתָ֑ם לָ֝שִׁ֗ית עִם־כַּלְבֵ֥י צֹאנִֽי), which may be conditioned by the preceding אֲשֶׁר.
See Auffret's renderings for our preferred reading: Toi, tu ordonnes tes préceptes, qu'on les observe entièrement (1993, 321); Toi, tu as commandé tes preceptes pour (qu'on veuille les) garder tout à fait (2006, 1). For such constructions of agency shift see the lexical note on v. 57, Sjörs forthcoming; cf. especially 2 Sam 1:18: וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת ('And he said that "Bow" should be taught to the sons of Judah').

v. 5

v. 6

v. 7

For a similar idea, cf. Ps 19:10: מִֽשְׁפְּטֵי־יְהוָ֥ה אֱמֶ֑ת צָֽדְק֥וּ יַחְדָּֽו.

v. 8

v. 9

The first alternative simply reads the verse as one sentence, with 'his way' elided in the infinitival clause, whether with means or purpose semantics (see Soll 1991, 60-61 for discussion). The second alternative adverbial reflects the Syr. purpose clause, ܕܢܛܪ ܦܘܩ̈ܕܢܝܟ ("so that he may observe your commandments," Taylor 2020, 497), reading the MT's כִּדְבָרֶֽךָ as the object, rather than an adverbial.

In the preferred second diagram, the LXX's ἐν τῷ φυλάσσεσθαι τοὺς λόγους σου ("by observing your words," NETS) is presented as an alternative (cf. CSB, GNT, NJPS, NABRE, NLT, LUT 2017, ZÜR,) reads the MT's כִּדְבָרֶֽךָ as the object, rather than an adverbial and thus necessarily an elided אָרְח֑וֹ, but differently from the Syr above as it nonetheless provides an answer, rather than a single sentence reading of the verse.

v. 10

v. 11

v. 12

v. 13

v. 14

For על as part of שׂושׂ VP, see Deut 28:63; 30:9; Isa 62:5; Jer 32:41; Zeph 3:17 (cf. HALOT, DCH and the NIV's as one rejoices in great riches and SG21's dynamic que si je possédais tous les trésors). See, however, Syr. ܠܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܣܗܕܘܬܟ ܪܚܡܬ ܛܒ ܡܢ ܟܠܗ ܥܘܬܪܐ ("I have loved the way of your testimony more than all riches," Taylor 2020, 497) as indicative of the alternative here, probably reading מֵעַל for the MT's כְּעַ֣ל, in the sense of מִן with עַל belonging to the elided clause dependent on שַׂ֗שְׂתִּי, providing the comparative (as the RVA, DHH and ELB).

v. 15

v. 16

The alternative follows the Syr. purpose clause, ܕܠܐ ܐܛܥܐ ܡ̈ܠܝܟ ("so that I might not forget your words," Taylor 2020, 499), though neither the MT, nor any modern translations (that I can see) have a conjunction. Ḥakham (1979, 372 n.14), however, suggests such an interpretation (ואפשר שמשמאות הכתוב: בחקתיך אשתעשע למען לא אשכח דבריך – "It is possible that the meaning of the Scripture is: In your laws I delight so that I will not forget your words"). In light of the asyndeton, however, result might be a more plausible reading of the Syr. ܕܠܐ ܐܛܥܐ ܡ̈ܠܝܟ than explicit purpose.

v. 17

The alternative verb גְּמֹר for the MT's גְּמֹל is found in 4Q90 and 11Q5, as "avenge (HALOT, DCH) for [the benefit of] your servant." It is contextually understandable and semantically comparable to גמל, though not followed by any of the ancient or modern translations.

The alternative with the waw is found in 4Q90, 11Q5 and Kennicott 4, 37, 38, 39, 76, 131, 156, 166 and 245. The Syr may have had a similar Vorlage, in any case providing a purpose reading, ܕܐܚܐ ("so that I might live"). The NIV's outlier, "while I live," is a temporal interpretation of the juxtaposed clause, those does not seem to be intended by the MT or any of the ancient versions.

As in v. 16 above, in light of the asyndeton, result might be a more plausible reading of the Syr. ܕܐܚܐ than explicit purpose.

v. 18

v. 19

v. 20

The alternative infinitival represents the LXX's and Jerome's reading inf. τοῦ ἐπιθυμῆσαι and desiderare ("to desire") for the MT's לְתַאֲבָ֑ה (followed by RVA's por anhelar and possibly Symmachus' θἐλουσα, "desiring," as read in BTX4ª's gerund, anhelando).

The alternative clause represents the Syr. compound verb phrase ܨܒܬ ܢܦܫܝ ܘܐܬܪܓܪܓܬ ("I have desired and longed," Taylor 2020, 499), perhaps reading לְתַאֲבָה as וְתַאֲבָה.

v. 21

The first alternative relative clause for the MT's אֲרוּרִ֑ים is representative of the NIV's You rebuke the arrogant, who are cursed.

The second alternative relative clause understands the article, הַ, as a relativiser. While making for smooth translation, its function is better understood as anaphoric, thus the NIV's those who stray from your commands.

The alternative diagram represents the LXX's, Syr. and Jerome's verbless clauses for the MT's אֲרוּרִ֑ים הַ֝שֹּׁגִים מִמִּצְוֺתֶֽיךָ, against the Masoretic accents (followed by the GNT, NET, BTX4ª).

v. 22

The revocalization follows 11Q5's גול and as represented in all the ancient versions (περίελε; aufer; אעדי; ܐܥܒܪ) and modern translations. GKC's (§67p) and Joüon-Muraoka's (§82l) claim that גַּל is a unique form of the imperative, possibly a shortened form of גֵּל, is special pleading for this one instance. The versions read Ps 22:9 as an indicative, presumably based on the reading גַּל (see the exegetical issue The Text, Grammar and Participants of Ps 22:9). There may be attraction for the purposes of poetic structure (see the notes there; cf. Fokkelman 2003, 239). In any case, it seems beyond doubt that an imperative is intended here.

v. 23

See macrosyntax notes for implausibility of focus reading, for which שַׁעֲשֻׁעָ֗י would be more appropriate, but is distanced from גַּם. Thus, the discourse-marker reading for גַּם has been preferred, as in v. 23.

For the alternative apposition, note that Jerome provides quasi ('like') before אַנְשֵׁ֥י עֲצָתִֽי. It seems more likely that what is elided in this comparative phrase is like my advisors are your decrees, not, like my advisors find their delight in your decrees, and so would be subsumed under the preferred diagram. Symmachus' ὡς ἄνδρες ὁμογνώμονές μοι ('as men like-minded to me') and Aquila's ὡς ἄνδρες βουλῆς μου ('as men of my counsel') are similar.

The elision of עֵ֭דֹתֶיךָ in a second verbless clause perhaps accounts for the presence of a second full clause in LXX's καὶ γὰρ τὰ μαρτύριά σου μελέτη μού ἐστιν, καὶ αἱ συμβουλίαι μου τὰ δικαιώματά σου ('For also your testimonies are my meditation, and my counsels are your decrees'), though a distinct Vorlage for the second clause may be in view. The Syr ܒܣܗܕܘܬܟ ܪܢܝܬ ܘܒܬܪܥܝܬܟ ܛܒܬܐ ('I have meditated on your testimony and on your good counsel,' Taylor 2020, 499) seems like a total paraphrase and should not be considered a grammatical alternative to the MT. Barthélemy et al. note its unique nature (Pour 24b la S semble littérairement autonome. On ne peut, en effet, lui assigner une Vorlage précise, 2005, 780).

v. 24

v. 25

v. 26

v. 27

For the LXX's καὶ ἀδολεσχήσω ἐν τοῖς θαυμασίοις σου ("And I will ponder in your wondrous works," NETS), Symmachus provides the explicit ἵνα διηγήσωμαι ("so that I will tell") for the weyiqtol וְ֝אָשִׂ֗יחָה.
Cf. Ḥakham (1979, 387): ואפשר שכל הפסוק משפט אחד: דרך פקודיך הבינני, כדי שאשיח בנפלאותיך ("It is possible that the whole verse is one sentence: 'give me understanding of the way of your precepts so that I will meditate on your wonderful deeds").

v. 28

v. 29

The instrumental nature of תוֹרָתְךָ֥ is clear in the LXX's τῷ νόμῳ σου and Jerome's ablative lege tua (both ≈ "by your law"). The Syr. inclination to take ܢܡܘܣܟ ("your law") as the object forces a change of verb to ܐܠܦܝܢܝ, "teach me."
The idea of "graciously giving" is possibly in view, as in Gen 33:5: הַיְלָדִ֕ים אֲשֶׁר־חָנַ֥ן אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־עַבְדֶּֽךָ. It seems that חנן may then, on rare occasions, allow a double object construction.
The NIV tries to conflate both into be gracious to me and teach me your law, while the CSB, ESV, KJV, NASB and NET have to gloss חנן as something like graciously give me. SG21 is a bit more creative, with accorde-moi la grâce de suivre ta loi.
Nonetheless, even in Gen 33:5 the LXX has a dative: Τὰ παιδία, οἷς ἠλέησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδά σου; while those versions which read ילדים as an object, translate 'give' and render with the dative/ܠ of recipient in the ditransitive (parvuli sunt quos donavit mihi Deus servo tuo; ܛ̈ܠܝܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܝܗ̣ܒ ܐܠܗܐ ܠܥܒ̣ܕܟ). Further, it is not clear that 'giving' is so much in view here, in light of the absolute uses of חנ׳׳ן elsewhere in the psalm (see vv. 58, 132).

v. 30

For the second clause, LXX reads τὰ κρίματά σου οὐκ ἐπελαθόμην ("your judgments I did not forget," NETS), for which it is difficult to reconstruct a Hebrew Vorlage similar to the MT but is almost certainly a harmonization to other similar passages (vv. 61, 83, 109, 141, 153, 176). Though not as far off, the Syr. reads ܨܒܝܬ, "I have delighted," in the place of שִׁוִּֽיתִי, perhaps reading שַׂשְׂתִּי.

v. 31

v. 32

Though both the LXX and Jerome have an accusative here, "the way of your commandments" (ὁδὸν ἐντολῶν σου, viam mandatorum tuorum), they may either indicate the grammatical direct object or an adverbial accusative. The latter is more likely as it is unclear that רוּץ is ever considered transitive in BH (as in the Englis, run a race), so the Syr. is probably right in providing a ܒ preposition, "in the way."

Note that 1Q10 has the singular מצותך for the MT's plural מִצְוֺתֶ֥יךָ.

Although the LXX reads ὅταν ἐπλάτυνας τὴν καρδίαν μου ("when you widened my heart") for the כִּי clause, Symmachus prefers the causal ὅτι εὐρυχώρησας (ܡܛܠ ܕܪܘܚܬ; "because you enlarged").

Thus the ESV, NET, NIV, RVR2015, BTX4ª, SG21, CEI, LND, NR2006 provide in/along the way of your commands, while the KJV and NASB read, quite unnaturally, I will run the way of your commandments (and the German versions also have the accusative, den Weg). The question is whether BH's רוּץ is a path of motion verb vs. a manner of motion verb, the former of which can be transitive ("enter a cave"), whereas the latter is typically encoded with a subject-oblique strategy ("run into a cave"; see Croft 2022, 214-216). As a BH analogy to this example: מִגְדַּל־עֹ֭ז שֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֑ה בּֽוֹ־יָר֖וּץ צַדִּ֣יק וְנִשְׂגָּֽב (Prov 18:10). The evidence of the three poetic books points to רוּץ as manner of motion (see the intransitives Ps 59:5; Prov 4:12 and PP-complemented instances Ps 147:15, Job 9:25; 15:26; 16:14; Prov 1:16; 6:18; 18:10). The adverbial lacks a preposition in this case in order to fulfill the דּ acrostic with דֶּֽרֶךְ־מִצְוֺתֶ֥יךָ. For a similar construction, see הַהֹלְכִים֙ הַדֶּ֣רֶךְ לֹא־ט֔וֹב (Isa 65:2).

v. 33

TOB follows the understanding of עקב as 'reward', largely based on v. 112. This issue will be addressed in lexical semantics, but does not seem persuasive enough to affect the diagram as its syntax mishandles the MT's וְאֶצְּרֶ֥נָּה עֵֽקֶב. Similarly, the REB's in keeping them I shall find my reward.

v. 34

The CSB (Help me understand your instruction, and I will obey it and follow it with all my heart; cf. GNT, NFC) does not fit the MT's syntax as it would require תֽוֹרָתֶ֗ךָ to belong in the first clause. The third clause explicitly provides continuity with the suffix on אֶשְׁמְרֶ֥נָּה, which the second clause could have done, if תֽוֹרָתֶ֗ךָ did not actually belong there.

v. 35

v. 36

v. 37

The alternative prepositional phrases represent the MT's בִּדְרָכֶ֥ךָ, on the one hand, and TgPs (בדברייך, "by your words"; cf. Kennicott 148, De-Rossi 34, ּBabylonian JTS Mss. 631, 680 and Or 2373's), on the other.
11Q5's reading, כדברכה ("according to your word"), is preferred due to the pattern of חַיֵּנִי + prepositional phrase throughout the psalm (cf. חַ֝יֵּ֗נִי כִּדְבָרֶֽךָ in vv. 25, 107, כְּֽמִשְׁפָּטֶ֥ךָ חַיֵּֽנִי in vv. 149, 156 and כְּחַסְדְּךָ֥ חַיֵּ֑נִי in vv. 88 and 159). None occur with a בְּ PP.
The alternative verb represents 11Q5's reading of חיה as from the root חנן, i.e., "show favor to." Though not offered as an alternative throughout, this same interchange occurs in vv. 40, 88, 107, 156, 159 (though חיני in v. 154!).
Barthélemy comments that Kennicott 148, as a fourteenth-century manuscript consisting of the Psalms and six other OT poems, has questionable textual value (Un ms composé de cette façon n'a évidemment aucune valeur de témoin pour la tradition textuelle du M, 2005, 782).
Note that while Barthélemy et al. prefer the committee's decision to maintain 11Q5's reading of כדברכה as original, it does so not as a corrective to the MT/LXX, but rather as representative of a "different recension" of the text in question, citing Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22 as two recensions of one poem by analogy (2005, 787-788).

v. 38

The preferred diagram (as the MT) is also read in the NASB and (roughly) the CSB, ESV, NIV, Luther 2017, EÜ, ZÜR, TOB, that is, YHWH's word has, for its end, the fear of YHWH. The alternate adverbial follows the LXX and Jerome's (εἰς τὸν φόβον σου; in timore tuo; in timorem tuum), that is, "Establish your word for the fear of you" without the relative particle.
The revocalization from לְיִרְאָתֶֽךָ to יְרֵאֶיךָ, the adjectival form found in v. 79 (read in the BDS, BTX4ª, DHH, GNT, JPS 1985, NABRE, NBS, NET, NFC, NVSR, PDV, REB, SG21).
This alternative follows the Syr. ܐܫܪ ܡܠܬܟ ܠܥܒܕܟ ܕܕܚܠ ܠܟ ("Confirm your word to your servant, who stands in awe of you," Taylor 2020, 503; cf. KJV, RVA). In this case the relative modifies עַבְדְּךָ instead of the more immediate antecedent, אִמְרָתֶךָ.

v. 39

These emendations represent the Syr. ܐܥܒܪ ܡܢܝ ܚܣܕܐ ("Remove reproach from me," Taylor 2020, 503). Although there is no textual evidence for such an emendation, and Syr. here is otherwise questionable (it is missing the verse's relative clause), such a sense is well-attested in modern translations (CSB, ESV, GNT, ISV, JPS 1985, NET, NFC, NIV, PDV, REB, TOB), some explicitly with the ܡܢܝ, "from me," prepositional phrase (BTX4ª, DHH, EÜ, NABRE, NBS, NVSR, RVR, SG21). Though it could be argued these are simply dynamic interpretations of the combination of the construct's (חֶ֭רְפָּתִי) suffix and the ensuing relative clause on the one hand, and the understood situational semantics of the imperative (הַעֲבֵ֣ר) on the other, the result nonetheless misses the specification of the insults aimed at X and provides a prepositional phrase not present in the MT or any other ancient versions.

v. 40

v. 41

For the MT's וִֽיבֹאֻ֣נִי חֲסָדֶ֣ךָ יְהוָ֑ה תְּ֝שֽׁוּעָתְךָ֗ כְּאִמְרָתֶֽךָ׃, the LXX has Καὶ ἔλθοι ἐπʼ ἐμὲ τὸ ἔλεός σου, κύριε, τὸ σωτήριόν σου κατὰ τὸ λόγιόν σου, while 11Q5 reads, ויבואוני חסד יהוה תשועתכה כאמרתכה.

The points of divergence are found in the singular or plural וִֽיבֹאֻ֣נִי or *וִיבֹאנִי representing the LXX in the alternative verb. Agreement should be sought with the subject, so the singular וִיבֹאנִי (ἔλθοι) is indexed with τὸ ἔλεός σου (the emended חַסְדְךָ; "your mercy," followed by BDS, BTX4ª, CSB, ESV, EÜ, JPS 1985, Luther 2017, NABRE, NASB, NET, NFC, NIV, NVSR, REB, RVR, SG21 ≠ ELB, KJV, TOB, ZÜR). The evidence for the plural verb (11Q5's ויבואוני, as also read in Babylonian JTS Ms. 631) is persuasive, as are the numerous Kennicott mss' explicit חסדיך makes a strong case for the plural. GKC §91k, however, reckons that both here and in vv. 37, 43 and 98, the singular is intended (but, again, see the plethora of manuscripts with the mater yod in v. 43, not to mention the ancient versions). Thus, the preferred diagram is the MT's vocalization as plural, though lacking the mater yod. The final alternative, חֶסֶד יְהוָה, represents 11Q5's suffix-less חסד presumably in construct with יהוה. This is problematic for the same manuscript's apparently unambiguously plural verb, though if it was deemed to be indexed to the subjects of both clauses, i.e., חֲסָדֶ֣ךָ and תְּ֝שֽׁוּעָתְךָ֗, the plural makes sense. This would be unusual without a waw, however, and the ellipsis reading is preferred. The Syr. ܕܐܡܪܬ ("as you promised," Taylor 2020, 503 ≈ DHH, NBS) seems rather to be a free rendering of the MT's כְּאִמְרָתֶֽךָ, rather than a textual difference. The Hebrew text would require either a כְּ-proclitic inf., כַּאֲמֹרְךָ, or, more naturally, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתָּ.

Note that the suffix on a qal בו׳׳א can often encode the goal of movement, which would require an oblique constituent in many languages, such as Greek ἐπʼ ἐμὲ and English "to me." Note also that 4Q89 reads the hiphil ויביאני, which makes the rest of the clause's syntax difficult to interpret.

v. 42

The emendation represents 11Q5's וענה, presumably the imperative עֲנֵה, in light of the surrounding 2sg volitives.

The alternative subordinate clause in 4Q89's פִּּקּוּדֶיךָ נָצַרְתִּי otherwise lacks Hebrew manuscript evidence (11Q5 agrees with the MT).

v. 43

The posited suffix on אמת, as read in 4Q89, otherwise lacks Hebrew manuscript evidence (11Q5 agrees with the MT).

The alternative PP represents 11Q5's לדבריכה, otherwise lacking Hebrew manuscript evidence (4Q89 agrees with the MT).

v. 44

Note that 4Q89 provides the plural תורתיך (with Kennicott 131, 133 and 259), against the MT, 11Q5 and 1Q10.

v. 45

v. 46

v. 47

The NIV's (cf. GNT) because I love them does not seem warranted in the presence of a simpler reading for the relative אֲשֶׁר.

v. 48

v. 48a: MT (vv. 47-48): וְאֶשְׁתַּֽעֲשַׁ֥ע בְּמִצְוֺתֶ֗יךָ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָהָֽבְתִּי׃

וְאֶשָּֽׂא־כַפַּ֗י אֶֽל־מִ֭צְוֺתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָהָ֗בְתִּי וְאָשִׂ֥יחָה בְחֻקֶּֽיךָ׃

Possible emendation (v. 48): וְאֶשָּֽׂא־כַפַּ֗י אֵלֶיךָ וְאָשִׂ֥יחָה בְחֻקֶּֽיךָ׃
For arguments regarding מִ֭צְוֺתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָהָ֗בְתִּי as dittography from v. 47 see Freedman 1999, 44ff. In short,
- The three words מִ֭צְוֺתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָהָ֗בְתִּי are identical to that of the previous verse, so dittography is a real possibility (see the stichography of 11Q5, for example)
- The inclusion of the three words creates a bicolon of 4-2 prosodic words, instead of 2-2 (a superior balance, and congruent with the 2-2 of v. 47)
- This is the only case of its 22 occurrences in which מִצְוָה appears with another of the major eight Torah words in the same verse.
- This creates 177 appearances of the Torah words, rather than 176 corresponding to the 176 verses of the psalm, if the emendation is accepted.
- Most significantly, it creates a difficult sense of lifting your hands to something other than God (as is explicit in Lam 2:19; 3:41 and implicit, i.e., without אֶל, in Ps 63:5 and 141:2 – the only instances of the root נשׂ׳׳א with כַּף).

On the other hand, there is no textual evidence for the emendation in either Hebrew manuscripts or translation, so it should not be undertaken lightly, as the error, if an error, was extremely early in the transmission process.

A note from phrase-level: In Ps 63:5 the "lifting of hands" seems to refer to praise or an oath; in 141:2 it is in parallel to "prayer." In Lam 2:19 it is also unmistakably a prayer, while in 3:41 it is a vow or prayer of repentance. Thus, the only way such a collocation could be used in reference to מִ֭צְוֺתֶיךָ is as a vow to keep them. Under the emended reading, it would be a matter of prayer/praise.

v. 49

v. 50

v. 51

v. 52

The preferred diagram has the adverbial מֵעוֹלָ֥ם in an asyndetic relative relationship to מִשְׁפָּטֶ֖יךָ, as the Syr. makes explicit ܐܬܕܟܪܬ ܕܝܢ̈ܝܟ ܡܪܝܐ ܕܡܢ ܥܠܡ ("I remembered your judgments, Lord, which are from eternity," cf. BDS, BTX4ª, CEB, DHH, ELB, ESV, EÜ, GNT, KJV, JPS 1985, Luther 2017, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NET, NFC, NIV, NVSR, PDV, RVA 2015, SG21, TOB, ZÜR).
The alternative, i.e., the ongoing (and ancient) remembering of these משׁפטים is a possible reading of the other ancient versions but only unambiguously following by the CSB and REB.

v. 53

v. 54

v. 55

v. 56

The complementizer clause is attested in the BDS, CSB, DHH, ESV, Luther 2017, ELB, NASB, NFC, NIV, SG21, TOB, ZÜR; the causal subordination in BTX4ª, CEB, EÜ, JPS1985, KJV, NABRE, NBS, NET, NVSR, REB, RVA, and explicitly in both TgPs and Syr. The latter is unlikely, however, with lack of a satisfactory antecedent for זֹאת. Instead, the keeping of YHWH's precepts was the psalmist's "possession," just as YHWH is his "lot" in v. 57.

v. 57

The preferred interpretation is represented in the Gallican Psalter, TgPs, BTX4ª, CSB, CEB, ELB, ESV, NABRE, NET, NIV, JPS 1985.
The alternative vocative understands the verbless clause to contain a 2sg referent, i.e., You are my portion, Lord (cf. DHH, KJV, REB, RVA 2015).
The first full alternative represents Jerome's (Iuxta Hebraeos) Pars mea Domine dixi ut custodiam verbum tuum ("My portion, Lord, I spoke, in order to keep your word").
Nevertheless, more common among modern (German and French) translations is to take the object as the entire content clause represents Luther 2017's ≈ ZÜR (Ich habe gesagt: HERR, das soll mein Erbe sein, dass ich deine Worte halte) and SG21's (= BDS, NBS, NFC, NVSR, PDV, TOB) Mon lot, Eternel, je le dis, c’est d’obéir à tes paroles. The EÜ's Mein Anteil ist es, HERR, das habe ich versprochen, deine Worte zu beachten is similar, but the verbless clause's subject and complement in reverse order to that of Luther 2017, ZÜR, and the French versions.

v. 58

Though probably simply a free addition for a natural rendering in the target language, the alternative suffix on לב represents the LXX's καρδίᾳ μου and Syr. ܠܒܝ, ("my heart") as followed also by English and French translations.

v. 59

v. 60

v. 61

v. 62

v. 63

v. 64

v. 65

The Syr ܕܐܡܪܬ ("as you promised," Taylor 2020: 509 ≈ CSB, NET, NFC, PDV) seems rather to be a free rendering of the MT's כִּדְבָרֶֽךָ, rather than a textual difference (see the note on v. 41; cf. v. 76).
The revocalisation towards an imperative (as the Syr ܥܒܶܕ) has been represented in the diagram as it is followed by the NIV (though it is textually unattested outside the Syriac).

v. 66

The alternative compound object represents the LXX's χρηστότητα καὶ παιδείαν καὶ γνῶσιν ("goodness and discipline and knowledge") and the Syr. ܛܥܡܐ ܘܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܘܡܕܥܐ ("discernment and grace and knowledge," ≈ Taylor 2020, 509). Despite the repetition of καί and ܘ ("and"), it does not seem necessary to posit an original waw in the Hebrew text, as these translations have probably interpreted the three as a list with the first two constituents asyndetically adjacent and only the last item needing the conjunction.

Despite the construct chain, only a number of French versions (e.g., TOB's Enseigne-moi les bienfaits du jugement et dè la science ≈ NBS, NFC, PDV) seems to capture this, with most other modern translations taking טוּב as attributively modifying only טעם (e.g., the ESV's Teach me good judgment and knowledge).

v. 67

The alternative treats וְ֝עַתָּ֗ה as a compound discourse particle (which the Masoretic accents might indicate), rather than conjunctive וְ and adverb עַתָּה. The LXX's διὰ τοῦτο ("because of this") though semantically distinct from וְ֝עַתָּ֗ה, may likewise treat the entire compound as a conjunction. See Jerome's shift from propterea ("therefore") in Gall. to nunc autem ("but now") in Hebr. in defense of our preferred interpretation.

v. 68

The vocative, though lacking in the MT, is read in the LXX (κύριε), Syr. (ܡܪܝܐ), and 11Q5 (אדוני). The Qumran and LXX evidence at first seem persuasive as to its originality, as well as providing five prosodic words to this verse, rather than four, and thus a closer balance to the surrounding seven and eight. However, note the tendency for the LXX to add a vocative where the MT lacks one throughout the psalm (e.g., vv. 93 and 97), and 11Q5 reads אדני, which does not occur elsewhere in the psalm. The emendation has thus been dispreferred.

The alternative represents LXX's ἐν τῇ χρηστότητί σου in place of the MT's מֵטִ֗יב.

v. 69

v. 69a: The preferred diagram is found in all the major modern translations, Jerome's Hebr. and TgPs. The alternative reads שֶׁ֣קֶר זֵדִ֑ים as a construct chain, the object of the impersonal verb phrase טָפְל֬וּ עָלַ֣י, though as a rare verb (only found in Job 13:4 and 14:17 otherwise in the Hebrew Bible) misunderstood as "multiply" by the LXX's passive ἐπληθύνθη ἐπʼ ἐμὲ ἀδικία ὑπερηφάνων ("Injustice of the arrogant filled out against me," NETS) and Syr. ܣܓܝ ܥܘܠܐ ܕܫܒܗܪ̈ܢܐ ("The iniquity of the boastful is great," Taylor 2020, 509).
v. 69b: The suffix on לב is found in the LXX's καρδίᾳ μου and the Syr. ܠܒܝ ("my heart"), though probably a target-language problem (cf. in toto corde, lit. "in all heart," in both Gall. and Hebr.). This is typically resorted to also in English (but see the JPS and REB's wholeheartedly) and most French versions, though not Spanish (de todo corazón) or German (von ganzem Herzen).

v. 70

Targum Psalms' אנא אורייתך פירנוקי ("As for me, your law is my delight," Stec 2004, 214), though providing the same sense as the MT's אֲ֝נִ֗י תּוֹרָתְךָ֥ שִֽׁעֲשָֽׁעְתִּי, is perhaps textually derived from the nominal form שַׁעֲשֻׁעַי ("my desire") in the place of שִֽׁעֲשָׁעְתִּי ("I desire"), as found also in Kennicott 156's שעשועי. The resulting alternative treats תּוֹרָתְךָ שַׁעֲשֻׁעַי as a verbless clause, with the pronoun אֲנִי as a hanging topic (cf. NJPS's Their minds are thick like fat; as for me, Your teaching is my delight). See vv. 77, 92 and 174 for possible sources of harmonization. The expected hithpalpel and בְּ (cf. vv. 16, 47) might also have been a cause of confusion.

v. 71

The possible emendation of עֻנֵּ֑יתִי ("I was humbled") to עִנִּיתָנִי ("you humbled me") represents the LXX's ἐταπείνωσάς με as well as 11Q5.

v. 72

As a cardinal numeral modification construction (Croft 2022, 109), אַלְפֵי in מֵ֝אַלְפֵ֗י זָהָ֥ב וָכָֽסֶף has been placed underneath the line, in analogy to quantifiers proper, probably in reference to "pieces" as glossed on the construct dependents זָהָ֥ב וָכָֽסֶף (see lexical semantics).

v. 73

v. 74

v. 75

The alternative represents Syr. ܘܗܝܡܢܘܬܟ ܡܟܟܬܢܝ ("Your faithfulness has humbled me," Taylor 2020, 511), even though there is no Hebrew textual evidence for either the suffix on אמונה or the 3fs verbal form.

v. 76

v. 77

v. 78

v. 79

The alternative represents the Ketiv – consonants וידעו as a weqatal וְיָדְעוּ (though a weyiqtol, וְיֵדְעוּ, is possible, the weqatal is more probable in this context). Such is read also in 11Q5's וידעו, Targum Psalms' וידעין, and followed by the ESV, Luther 2017, REB and possibly NFC and PDV). The Qere's participle וְ֝יֹדְעֵ֗י (as the LXX, Syr, and Jerome) forms a compound subject in place of the compound predicate caused by the ketiv. The latter has been preferred by analogy to v. 63.

v. 80

v. 81

v. 82-83

v. 82: The alternative verb represents the כלתה of 11Q5, though this is almost certainly erroneously copied from the previous line (v. 81). Of course this would also require revocalisation of עֵינַי to the singular עֵינִי for the 3fs verb.
v. 83: The alternative verbal phrase in the first clause represents 11Q5's עשיתני in the place of the MT's הָ֭יִיתִי.
The alternative object in the second clause represents 11Q5's חסדכה in the place of the MT's חֻ֝קֶּ֗יךָ.
The alternative subordinate clause understands the first clause as a temporal subordinate to the second, as Jerome seems to read: et cum essem quasi uter in pruinam praecepta tua non sum oblitus ("and when I was as a leather bottle in frost I did not forget your precepts"). It could also perhaps be read as concessive (CSB, DHH, JPS 1985, NASB, NIV, REB, RVA 2015), while ZÜR provides an "asseverative" Fürwahr ("truly"). More natural, however, both in the use of כִּי and the semantics of the two verses, is the causal subordination of the כִּי clause in v. 82.

v. 84

v. 85

v. 85: The alternative represents the interpretation that the relative clause modifies the שִׁיח֑וֹת ("pits") rather then the זֵדִ֣ים ("arrogant people"). The former seems to be the interpretation of Jerome (foveas quae non erant iuxta legem tuam; "a pit which was not according to your law" cf. KJV). In the clausal fragment of the relative clause in the preferred version (cf. CEB, CSB, DHH, ESV, EÜ, GNT, ISV, Luther 2017, NASB, SG21, ZÜR) the verb עשׂה is the most likely to have been elided with כְּ + תּוֹרָה following (cf. Josh 1:7; 2 Kgs17:34). Since אֲשֶׁר לֹא כְּ/בְּ is a LBH feature, primarily attested in Aramaic (די) and Rabbinic Hebrew (שֶׁ–), the Targum's expansion seems to be relatively trustworthy (כרו לי זדונין שווחן דלא פקידתנון באוריתך; "The arrogant have dug pits for me, which you did not command them in your law," Stec 2004, 214). See also the eventive reading in Esth 4:16: אָב֤וֹא אֶל־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־כַדָּ֔ת but the עשׂה probably elided in Jer 17:11: עֹ֥שֶׂה עֹ֖שֶׁר וְלֹ֣א בְמִשְׁפָּ֑ט and Dan 2:34: הִתְגְּזֶ֤רֶת אֶ֙בֶן֙ דִּי־לָ֣א בִידַ֔יִן. Indeed, Ibn Ezra explicitly connects it to the prohibition of the action of not shedding innocent blood (אשר לא כתורתך - שצוית לא ישפך דם נקי).
The LXX's ἀλλά ("but") does not seem to fit the MT's אֲשֶׁר (though see Symmachus' ἅ, "which"). Targum Psalms' דלא פקידתנון באוריתך ("which you did not command them in your law," Stec 2004: 214) is likely a paraphrase of the MT's כְתוֹרָתֶֽךָ, not בְּתוֹרָתֶֽךָ (though see a number of Hebrew manuscripts reading בתורתך cited in VTH vol 2, 418 and De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: vol 4, 78).
11Q5 reads שחת for the MT's שִׁיח֑וֹת, which is the more common by-form of שִׁיחוֹת, though singular.

v. 86

v. 87

The alternative PP represents 11Q5's מארץ, which, while intuitively reasonable, we would actually expect to be מֵעַל (cf. Exod 32:32; Deut 28:21). The sense may be closer to the expected כרת מֵאֶרֶץ (e.g., Ps 109:15).

v. 88

v. 89

v. 89: The preferred reading is attested in the BDS, BTX4ª, CEB, ELB, ESV, EÜ, KJV, NASB, NBS, NVSR, PDV, RVA, SG21, TOB, ZÜR.
The first alternative maintains the vocative, but provides a verbless clause with the subject your word, which is then elided from the second clause (as the CSB, DHH, GNT, NABRE, NET, NIV, NFC, REB). The comparative found in Luther 2017's HERR, dein Wort bleibt ewiglich, so weit der Himmel reicht is unique.
The second alternative follows the Syr. ܠܥܠܡ ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܡܪܝܐ ("You, O Lord, are forever," Taylor 2020, 513). The JPS 1985's The LORD exists forever; Your word stands firm in heaven, is similar, though the Lord has not been spoken of in the third person since v. 3.

v. 90

v. 91

The preferred reading is attested in the ELB, ESV, EÜ, KJV, Luther 2017, NABRE, NASB, NET, ZÜR. The antecedent is best judged to be the entirety of heavens (בַּשָּׁמָֽיִם in v. 89) and earth (אֶ֝֗רֶץ in v. 90), as a merism, hence הַכֹּ֣ל.
The more dynamic translations' understanding that הַכֹּל as backwards elided, however, is attractive: All things remain to this day because of your command, because they are all your servants (GNT); Todas las cosas siguen firmes, conforme a tus decretos, porque todas ellas están a tu servicio (DHH ≈ BTX4ª); C’est d’après tes lois que tout subsiste aujourd’hui (SG21 ≈ BDS, NFC, PDV, TOB).
The modern translations which take your judgments as the subject of the plural verb do not account for the MT's lamed in לְֽ֭מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ (see the CEB, CSB, NIV, REB). While GKC claims "Sometimes a substantive introduced by לְ ('in respect to,' cf. §119u) serves the same purpose as the casus pendens beginning the sentence," he goes on to state, "On the other hand, ... ψ119:91 [is] very doubtful" (§143e).
The first alternative represents the LXX's τῇ διατάξει σου διαμένει ἡ ἡμέρα ("By your arrangement the day endures," NETS), with הַיּוֹם as the subject and thus the verb necessarily singular.

v. 92

v. 93

The extra vocative is found in the LXX.
The alternative verbless clause represents the Syr. ܒܗܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܚ̈ܝܝ ("my life is in them," Taylor 2020, 513), though probably just a dynamic rendering, since חַיַּי is unlikely to be derived from חִיִּיתָֽנִי textually.

v. 94

v. 95

v. 96

v. 97

The extra vocative is found in the LXX.

v. 98

The alternative represents the LXX (ἐσόφισάς) and Jerome's (instruis) reading of as 2ms "you made wise" instead of the preferred 3fs with מִצְוֺתֶ֑ךָ as the subject. In this case, מִצְוֺתֶ֑ךָ functions as a nominal adverb. The Syr. imperative ܚܟܡܝܢܝ ("make me wise") is probably a modal interpretation of the same 2ms reading. The primary reason the 3fs is the preferred reading is the discourse continuity into the next clause, in which הִיא is the subject (cf. v. 97).
- The 2ms reading is followed by the KJV, Luther 2017, RVA.
- The 3fs reading is followed by the BDS, BTX4ª, CSB, CEB, DHH, ELB, ESV, EÜ, JPS 1985, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NET, NFC, NIV, NVSR, PDV, REB, SG21, TOB, ZÜR.

In both cases, the revocalization from the plural מִצְוֹת to the singular מִצְוָה is necessary, in light of היא in the following clause.

v. 99

The alternative emendation represents the Syr imperative ܣܟܠܝܢܝ ("give me understanding").

v. 100

v. 101

The alternative with the 2ms is not attested in any Hebrew evidence, but in Rahlfs' 55 (ἐκώλυσας vs. LXX's ἐκώλυσα) and the Vetus Latina (Rahlfs' LaG; prohibuisti).

v. 102

v. 103

The additional comparee is found in the LXX's καὶ κηρίον, probably derived from the Hebrew נֹפֶת (as the parallel in Ps 19:11 - הַֽנֶּחֱמָדִ֗ים מִ֭זָּהָב וּמִפַּ֣ז רָ֑ב וּמְתוּקִ֥ים מִ֝דְּבַ֗שׁ וְנֹ֣פֶת צוּפִֽים), by harmonization if not textual. Such an addition is apparently ignored, however, in Jerome's Gall. super mel (= Hebr.).
In the place of the MT's מִן, Symmachus reads ὡς μέλι (ܐܝܟ ܕܒܫܐ), either from harmonization or reading the preposition כְּ.

v. 104

v. 105

As throughout in the psalm, there is variation between the plural and singular readings of the suffixed noun. See VTH (vol. 1, 419) for Heb mss with the mater yod in דבריך. A similar phenomenon is found in the suffix of רגלי, which is plural in all the ancient versions (except Jerome's pedi). The semantic plural has also been preferred here, the singular probably as class, in analogy to the cases of singular "eye" in Pss 88:10, 92:12.

v. 106

v. 107

For the MT's נַעֲנֵ֥יתִי, we have נעויתי in 11Q5, presumably נַעֲוֵיתִי (be bowed down, suffer injustice; DCH, cf. Ben Sira 13:13). Such a consonantal text is otherwise unattested among Hebrew mss, yet the semantic result is similar to ענה.

v. 108

Jerome's voluntaria oris mei conplaceant tibi for the MT's נִדְב֣וֹת פִּ֭י רְצֵה־נָ֣א seems like a free rendering, rather than textual difference (for which we would probably need the niph. יֵרָצוּ), so does not merit an alternative diagram (cf. RVA's Sean agradables a ti, oh SEÑOR, las ofrendas de mi boca).
11Q5, besides lacking the particle נָ֣א, reads ממשפטיכה for the MT's וּֽמִשְׁפָּטֶ֥יךָ, presumably as a partitive מִן. Interestingly, Syr. has both the waw and the mem (ܘܡܢ ܕܝܢ̈ܝܟ ܐܠܦܝܢܝ), though the Syriac translators often add conjunctive ܘ where none is present in the MT, so the extra ܡܢ is quite strong evidence for 11Q5's reading. On the other hand, both could result from a conflation with וּ֝מִפִּקּוּדֶ֗יךָ in v. 110b or וּֽמִמִּשְׁפָּטֶ֥יךָ in v. 120b, so the MT has been preferred.

v. 109

v. 110

The alternative represents 11Q5's אני פקודיכה לוא תעיתי for the MT's וּ֝מִפִּקּוּדֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א תָעִֽיתִי.

v. 111

The alternative represents Jerome's verbless hereditas mea testimonia tua "my inheritance is your testimonies," reading the MT's verb נָחַ֣לְתִּי "I have inherited" as נַחֲלָתִי "my inheritance," as the ESV's "Your testimonies are my heritage forever" (cf. CEB, DHH, ELB, EÜ, JPS 1985, Luther 2017, NABRE, NIV, REB, RVA 2015 and all the major French versions). It is likely, however, that most of these modern translations are loose renderings of the verb נָחַ֣לְתִּי, rather than following Jerome's verbless clause.

v. 112

Jerome's retributionem and Symmachus' εἰς μισθαποδοσίαν αἰώνιον (from ܠܦܘܪܥܢܘܬܐ ܐܓܪܐ ܕܠܥܠܡ) may be derived from the more plausible sense of reward (DCH, BDB); cf. Ps 19:12 – גַּֽם־עַ֭בְדְּךָ נִזְהָ֣ר בָּהֶ֑ם בְּ֝שָׁמְרָ֗ם עֵ֣קֶב רָֽב. Thus the verbless clause in the alternative diagram, as the NABRE's they are my reward forever (cf. the ELB, REB, and TOB).

v. 113

v. 114

v. 115

v. 116

The alternative represents both Targum Psalms and Syr. במימרך ("with your word," Stec 2004, 216) and ܒܡܠܬܟ ("in your word"; Taylor 2020, 519) for the MT's כְאִמְרָתְךָ֣. There is also considerable Hebrew manuscript evidence for the בְּ preposition (see Kennicott, VTH: vol. 1, 419 and De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: vol. 4, 79).

v. 117

The alternative emended verb represents a few modern translations' (and a few Targum Psalms witnesses; Stec 2004, 216) delight in (Luther 2017: so will ich stets Freude haben an deinen Geboten; RVA: siempre me deleitaré en tus leyes).
The alternative verb phrase represents 11Q5's אשא (presumably from נשׂא) for the MT's אֶשְׁעָ֖ה, which also loses the need for the preposition בְּ in the verb phrase's valency. Whether this was due to similar-sounding verbs, or a smoothing of the clause's semantics in light of the MT's somewhat rare root שׁעה, the fact that Syr. also shows some uncertainty regarding the verb's meaning (ܐܬܝܠܦ; "I will be taught") and Kennicott 35 has אשׁמעה perhaps points to a contextual guess in both cases.

v. 118

The alternative emended verb represents Syr. 1cs ܐܣܠܝܬ for the MT's 2ms סָ֭לִיתָ.

v. 119

v. 119: The preferred reading is the emended חָשַׁבְתָּ from the MT's הִשְׁבַּ֥תָּ, as read in Jerome's conputasti (you considered). The 1cs of the same (preferred root) is found in 11Q5's חשבתי (cf. Kennicott ms 30; De-Rossi 34; for further, see De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 79, cf. also the Babylonian ḥišavtā in JTS Ms. 508), as also the LXX's ἐλογισάμην, Aquila's διελογίσω, Symmachus' ελογίσω (all ≈ "I consider"). Theodotion/Quinta's διέκοψας may well be derived from the MT's 2ms הִשְׁבַּ֥תָּ.

Of the three possibilities, Barthélemy and committee were split (Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Tome 4. Psaumes, 2005, 801), with the median position being our preferred reading with the verbal root of 11Q5 but the 2ms of the MT. For a similar construction of qal חשׁב with a double object, see Isa 53:4 (וַאֲנַ֣חְנוּ חֲשַׁבְנֻ֔הוּ נָג֛וּעַ). There may be an attraction to וְהִשְׁבַּתִּ֥י חַיָּֽה־רָעָ֖ה מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ (Ezek 34:25), which has an explicit מִן, however, and not a double object.

11Q5's עַל כֵּן for the MT's לָ֝כֵ֗ן is somewhat inconsequential, since they bear similar semantics. The extra כָּל is also provided from 11Q5, though otherwise unattested.

The major problem with the MT's הִשְׁבַּ֥תָּ is the logical relation with the following לָ֝כֵ֗ן, as Barthélemy: "si 'tous les impies du pays' sont déjà 'éjectés', on ne voit pas pourquoi la conséquence de cela (לָכֵן), c'est que 'j'aime tes témoignages' (2005, 801). The preferred, you considered fits the logical connection with v. 119b the best, only emending a he to a ḥet.

v. 120

v. 121

The alternative participial vocative represents Syr.'s ܥܳܒܶܕ, ("Doer of justice and righteousness"; Taylor 2020, 519).
The emendation of the verb in the preferred diagram represents a number of Hebrew manuscripts which read עשית (see VTH vol. 2, 419 & De-Rossi Variae Lectionis vol. 4, 79). Note also that for the MT's מִשְׁפָּ֣ט, Symmachus reads τὰ κρίματά σου ("your judgments").

v. 122

v. 123

v. 124

v. 125

v. 126

The preferred diagram represents the Lord being the agent of the infinitival לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת, as this seems in line with the Lord acting throughout the psalm (cf. BDS, BTX4ª, CEB, CSB, DHH, ELB, ESV, EÜ, GNT, Luther 2017, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NET, NFC, NIV, NVSR, KJV, PDV, REB, RVA, ZÜR).

The alternative diagram is the psalmist (and perhaps others) acting on behalf of the Lord. This seems to be a simpler reading of the syntax, but does not seem congruent with the larger message of the psalm (cf. JPS 1985, SG21, TOB).

The preferred understanding of agency is unambiguous in Jerome's Hebr. tempus est ut facias Domine, 'it is time for you to act, Lord', despite reading the MT's לַיהוָ֑ה as a vocative (cf. יהוה in Kennicott ms 76, κύριε in Ἄλλοι [Field] and the BDS, BTX4ª, DHH, EÜ, NIV, PDV, RVA, ZÜR), though an explicit vocative is dispreferred as an emendation. In the presence of the לְ, the vocative function has been dispreferred in the exegetical issue The Grammar and Meaning of Ps. 119:126, but will remain an alternative in light of its attestation, primarily in Jerome.

The dispreferred reading is found in Targum Psalms' עידן למעבד רעותא דיהוה ("It is time to perform the will of the Lord"; Stec 2004, 216) and Syr. ܙܒܢܐ ܗܘ ܠܡܦܠܚܗ ܠܡܪܝܐ ("It is time to serve [him,] the Lord") with the proleptic suffix ܗ on ܠܡܦܠܚܗ "serve him").

v. 127

v. 128

v. 128: The emendation follows the suffix found on the LXX's πάσας τὰς ἐντολάς σου and Syr. ܦܘܩ̈ܕܢܝܟ, (both, "your commandments") only requiring the lack of lamed on the MT's כֹ֣ל (whose clause reads עַל־כֵּ֤ן׀ כָּל־פִּקּ֣וּדֵי כֹ֣ל יִשָּׁ֑רְתִּי). It also provides a 2ms suffix in a verse where otherwise there would not be one, which is uncharacteristic of Ps 119 (since every other instance of פִּקּוּדִים throughout the psalm has the 2ms suffix). A few manuscripts are missing the MT's second כל (Kennicott ms 142, De-Rossi ms 829; see VTH vol. 2, 419 and Variae Lectiones vol. 4, 79), yet it is unclear how they understand the construct ending of פִּקּוּדֵי. The preferred emendation is read in the BDS, CEB, CSB, DHH, ELB, ESV, EÜ, GNT, JPS 1985, Luther 2017, NABRE, NET, NIV, REB, RVA, SG21, ZÜR; cf. GKC §130f.n4).

The alternative maintains the second כֹ֣ל of the MT, perhaps understand as the פִּקּ֣וּדֵי כֹ֣ל "commandments of (concerning) everything," besides this being quite an awkward very rarely attested use of כל (see Ezek 44.30, for example). It is the preferred reading of Barthélemy (2005), though with a {C}. Targum Psalms' repeated (emphatic) כולהון in כל פיקודיא כולהון is plausible, but does not account for the construct state of the MT's פִּקּ֣וּדֵי. In 11Q5 we have פקודי כל but are missing the initial כל of the construct chain.

A number of modern translations attempt to preserve both the suffix and the second כל (BTX4ª, KJV, NASB, NBS, NFC (?), NVSR, PDV (?) TOB).

v. 129

The alternative represents 11Q5's פלגי נפת ("streams of honey") for the MT's פְּלָא֥וֹת ("miracles, marvels"), as it is otherwise unattested among Hebrew mss or the ancient versions, and may be a harmonization to Ps 19:11 or a scribal error caused by the similar beginning of v. 136.

v. 130

The alternative represents Syr.'s triple-imperatival reading of the verse, as ܦܬܚ ܡܠܬܟ ܘܐܢܗܪ ܘܣܟܠ ܠܫܒܪ̈ܐ ("Open your word and shine forth light; give understanding to the little children"; Taylor 2020, 521), probably caused by a misunderstanding of the MT's initial nominal פֵּ֖תַח for the imperative פְתַח, and subsequently followed through for the following two verbs, though morphologically much less similar. If Symmachus is to be followed (reading ἡ πύλη from פֶתַח), the construct form would have read פְתַח, which is identical to the form of the imperative, open.

Furthermore, 11Q5 also has האר (presumably the imperative הָאֵר) for the MT's יָאִ֗יר and may very well also be reading the initial פתח as an imperative, as does JTS Mss 456, 508 so there is evidence for a distinct Vorlage. On the other hand, there may be a harmonization/scribal error caused by הָאֵ֣ר in v. 135.

v. 131

The LXX's εἵλκυσα πνεῦμα and Syr. ܘܣܩܬ ܪܘܚܐ ("I drew breath"; NETS & Taylor 2020, 521) for the MT's וָאֶשְׁאָ֑פָה may simply be a dynamic rendering of שׁאף according to its sense, as gasping, panting. Nonetheless, it has been provided as an alternative here as רוּחַ is explicitly given as an object in Jer 2:24 and 14:6, though there is no Hebrew manuscript evidence that that should be the case here.

v. 132

The alternative represents the Syr. subordinate clause, ܡܛܘܠ ܕܪܚܡܬ ܫܡܟ ("for I love your name"; Taylor 2020, 521), in place of the MT's adverbial כְּ֝מִשְׁפָּ֗ט לְאֹהֲבֵ֥י שְׁמֶֽךָ, which is otherwise unattested textually.

v. 133

The alternative prepositional phrase represents both the LXX and a number of Hebrew mss reading כְּאִמְרָתֶךָ for the MT's בְּאִמְרָתֶ֑ךָ (see VTH vol. 2, 419 and Variae Lectiones vol 4, 80). The Syr. ܐܬܩܢ ܗ̈ܠܟܬܝ ܒܫ̈ܒܝܠܝܟ ("Establish my steps in your paths"; Taylor 2020, 521) is not presented as an alternative, lacking any Hebrew manuscript evidence.

The alternative in the second clause reads the verb תַּשְׁלֶט as 3fs and thus כָל־אָֽוֶן as the subject (as the LXX, Syr.; BDS, BTX4ª, RVA).

The preferred reading is of a 2ms verb with YHWH as the subject and כָל־אָֽוֶן as the object (as Jerome; DHH, ELB, EÜ, Luther 2017, NBS, NFC, NVSR, PDV, SG21, TOB, ZÜR). In other instances, אָוֶן is unambiguously flagged as a masculine noun (see Job 5:6; 11:14), while the causative allow X to gain power over Y (≈ HALOT) seems more likely than DCH's "dominate" or BDB's "get mastery of" for the hiphil שׁלט.

v. 134

v. 135

v. 136

The status of פַּלְגֵי־מַ֭יִם as the subject is explicit in both Jerome and Syr.'s prepositional phrases de oculis meis and ܡܢ ܥܝܢ̈ܝ ("from my eyes"; cf. BTX4a, DHH, ELB, EÜ, KJV, Luther 2017, NET, NIV, PDV, RVA, TOB, ZÜR) and has seemingly been determined by process of elimination, since the MT only provides a bare nominal 'my eyes'.

The first alternative represents my eyes as the subject and פַּלְגֵי־מַ֭יִם as a predicative constituent of manner. GKC's (§117z) gives evidence that qal ירד can take such an adverbial of manner, by analogy of מלא with the instrument constituent. Such a configuration is seen in Lam 1:16 (עֵינִי֙ יֹ֣רְדָה מַּ֔יִם); Lam 3:48 (פַּלְגֵי־מַ֙יִם֙ תֵּרַ֣ד עֵינִ֔י); Jer 9.17 (וְתֵרַ֤דְנָה עֵינֵ֙ינוּ֙ דִּמְעָ֔ה) and Jer 13:17 (וְתֵרַ֤ד עֵינִי֙ דִּמְעָ֔ה), where there is no ambiguity regarding gender/number agreement. However, the REB (My eyes stream with tears) seems to be the only modern translation to explicitly adopt such an interpretation here.

The second alternative is similar, representing "my eyes" as the subject and "streams of water" as the object, following the LXX's διεξόδους ὑδάτων κατέβησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου (and Symmachus's διαιρέσεις ὑδάτων κατέδυναν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου). For this syntax the emendation to a hiphil seems likely (cf. the BDS, CSB, ESV, JPS 1985, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NVSR, SG21).

For the function of עַל as a conjunction, see also Gen 31:20, Exod 17:7, Isa 53:9; Jer 2:25, Job 16.17, 32:2 and Ezra. 3:11. In Kennicott mss 38 and 39, however, we have the more common על אשר and 11QPsª has the more common על כי. See BHRG §39.20.4, GKC §158b.

v. 137

The subject of the second clause מִשְׁפָּטֶֽיךָ, has been emended to drop the yod – which may have arisen on account of the mater lectionis vowel anyway – and read as singular, in agreement with the predicate יָשָׁ֗ר (Joüon-Muroka §148b agree). The consonants משפטך are read by Kennicott ms 43, De-Rossi 412, as well as the LXX, Jerome and Targum Psalms.

Besides the MT's מִשְׁפָּטֶֽיךָ, the alternatives involve predicates in grammatical agreement with this plural, i.e., the adjective יְשָׁרִים, as in 11Q5, which is congruent with the plural subject, or the abstract noun יֹשֶׁר, which works with the MT's consonants but would require revocalization. Nonetheless, all the major modern translations read a plural complement to מִשְׁפָּטֶֽיךָ, except the BDS's et tes décrets sont conformes à la droiture, which has been represented by alternative position of יָשָׁ֗ר as a predicate adverbial.

There are systematic ambiguities between pausal forms and plurals throughout this psalm. Revell points out five cases in the opposite direction (vv. 43, 149 and 175) on conjunctive munaḥs and merkas, while this verse-final מִשְׁפָּטֶֽ(י)ךָ would fit pausal expectations (cf. vv. 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 25, 28, 34, 38a, 38b, 41, 42, 49a, 53, 55, 58, 62, 65, 76, 82, 84, 85, 90, 97, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 123a, 123b, 124, 126, 132, 135, 136b, 148, 160, 162a, 164, 165, 172, 176a).

GKC (§145o, r) understands the m.sg. here to be default since it is clause-initial, though plural in sense (cf. the common situation of a 3ms verb). However, Hos 14:10 reads וְיֵֽדָעֵ֑ם כִּֽי־יְשָׁרִ֞ים דַּרְכֵ֣י יְהוָ֗ה.

For the plural משׁפט with plural ישׁר see Neh 9:13 – וַתִּתֵּ֨ן לָהֶ֜ם מִשְׁפָּטִ֤ים יְשָׁרִים֙ וְתוֹר֣וֹת אֱמֶ֔ת חֻקִּ֥ים וּמִצְוֺ֖ת טוֹבִֽים׃, and, in a similar context, though with פקודים and דרכים, Ps 19:9 – פִּקּ֘וּדֵ֤י יְהוָ֣ה יְ֭שָׁרִים.

v. 138

The alternative in the main clause represents each of the three nominals in the accusative (in Greek and Latin) as three separate objects (cf. the LXX's δικαιοσύνην τὰ μαρτύριά σου καὶ ἀλήθειαν σφόδρα and Jerome's Gall., iustitiam testimonia tua et veritatem tuam nimis). His rendering of the Hebrew text as iustitiam testimonii tui et veritatem nimis supports the preferred reading of the MT.

The alternative מְאֹד as an adverb is its more natural function, though it is difficult to understand what "command greatly" could mean. Thus it is preferred as a modifier of the noun "faithfulness" (see DCH).

The alternative clause represents the Syr. and (probably) Targum Psalms, with only עֵדֹתֶ֑יךָ as the object of צִ֭וִּיתָ and both צֶ֣דֶק and אֱמוּנָ֥ה as nominal adverbs. The fact that these are a word pair supports the plausibility of this alternative, and the ܒ prepositions in the Peshitta (ܒܙܕܝܩܘܬܐ ܘܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ) make their interpretation clear. See the ESV for a similar rendering (You have appointed your testimonies in righteousness and in all faithfulness; cf. the ELB, EÜ, Luther 2017, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NFC, NVSR, RVA, SG21, ZÜR).

v. 139

v. 140

v. 141

v. 142

The alternatives in the first clause represent 11Q5's צדקות צדקות לעולם ("righteous deeds are righteous deeds always"), though otherwise unattested among Hebrew manuscripts. In this same clause, Syr.'s ܙܕܝܩܘܬܟ ܩܝܡܐ ܠܥܠܡ ("Your righteousness remains forever"; Taylor 2020: 523) is deemed a dynamic rendering without meriting an alternative (cf. the CEB's, Your righteousness lasts forever). The alternative position of לְעוֹלָ֑ם is adverbial, i.e., "it is justice forever," but the preferred position is as adjectival, modifying the predicate, i.e., "it is an eternal justice" (cf. Jerome's iustitia tua iustitia sempiterna), which seems to be the focal content of the proposition, that is, "What type of justice is it?"

The alternative predicate in the second clause represents Syr.'s ܒܫܪܪܐ ("in truth"), though otherwise textually unattested.

v. 143

v. 144

Most modern translations follow the preferred diagram in rendering צֶ֖דֶק as part of a construct chain – with the exception of the ELB and EÜ (Gerechtigkeit ≠ sind gerecht as the Luther 2017, ZÜR), the RVA's "Justicia eterna son tus testimonios," and the TOB's "Tes exigences sont la justice éternelle" (cf. the NBS, NFC, and NVSR). The ancient versions also read the dispreferred verbless clause: "Your commandments are always justice."

The preferred diagram avoids the grammatical mismatch between צֶ֖דֶק and עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ, and provides the same construct chain unambiguously present towards the beginning of the stanza: צִ֭וִּיתָ צֶ֣דֶק עֵדֹתֶ֑יךָ (v. 138).

v. 145

The emended addition of the suffix on קָרָאתִיךָ, as found in the Syr. and in Kennicott mss 97 and 201, is almost certainly an addition ad sensum or harmonization to the following verse, rather than representing preferable text.

The suggestion that the second and third clauses could be the content of the calling out is represented in the NET's I cried out with all my heart, “Answer me, O Lord! I will observe your statutes.” However, only the first of these two content clauses has been represented in the grammatical alternative, as it is less plausible that the final clause would continue the speech. (Indeed, NET does the same thing in the following verse. Both constructions are commonplace throughout the whole psalm, however, which would point away from the content clause interpretation in general.)

v. 146

v. 147

The qere has been followed here, as reflected in Jerome, Targum Psalms and the Peshitta. Kennicott also lists numerous manuscripts lacking the yod (see VTH vol. 2, 420).

The alternative plural indicated by the ketiv is followed by the LXX's (and Symmachus's) τοὺς λόγους σου (cf. the ELB, EÜ, NABRE, TOB).

v. 148

Despite the lack on plene yod in בְּאִמְרָתֶֽךָ and despite Revell's categorization as a pausal form, it is likely that the plural "your words" is intended here, in light of both the LXX τὰ λόγιά σου and Hebr. in sermonibus tuis, respectively.

The preferred reading of אַשְׁמֻר֑וֹת is as a nominal adverb (HALOT) and the alternative as the verb's (קִדְּמ֣וּ) object (so BDB, DCH). The decision depends on the construal of the verb's semantics and therefore valency (cf. the LXX's πρὸς ὄρθρον, Symmachus's ἐν φυλακῇ, the ESV's My eyes are awake before the watches of the night and NIV's My eyes stay open through the watches of the night vs. the NASB's My eyes anticipate the night watches and JPS's My eyes greet each watch of the night, etc.). This becomes more of a lexical semantics issue, though, since vv. 147 and 148 are the only clear instances of this sense in the Bible, and in light of the parallel found in v. 147 (קִדַּ֣מְתִּי בַ֭נֶּשֶׁף), the nominal adverb reading has been preferred.

v. 149

The alternative adverbial prepositional phrase with the emendation represents the ܒ found in the Syr.'s ܒܕܝܢ̈ܝܟ ("by your judgments"; Taylor 2020, 525, cf. the NABRE, REB), also found in a number of Medieval Hebrew mss (see VTH vol 2, 420 and De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 80).

v. 150

The alternative represents the LXX's οἱ καταδιώκοντές με ἀνομίᾳ ("Those who persecute me with lawlessness," NETS, cf. Symmachus's ἔσπευσαν οἱ διώκοντές με) and Syr's. ܩܪܒܘ ܪ̈ܕܘܦܝ ܕܥܘܠܐ ("Those who wickedly persecute me," Taylor 2020, 525), i.e., זִמָּ֑ה is being interpreted as a nominal adverb and the yod at the end of the plural construct form has been re-analyzed as a 1cs suffix, so revocalized vis-à-vis the MT. See also De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 80-81 for numerous Hebrew mss indicating a 1cs suffix on the participle. Such a reading is followed by the ESV (They draw near who persecute me with evil purpose), cf. BTX4ª, DHH, Luther 2017, REB, RVA.

v. 151

For the alternative emended PP in place of the nominal אֱמֶֽת, see Syr. ܒܩܘܫܬܐ.

The common translation as the adjective true rather than the noun truth is valid since there is no adjectival form for true in BH: "The employment of a substantive as predicate of a noun-clause is especially frequent... when no corresponding adjective exists" (GKC §141c).

v. 152

For the alternative PP of מֶעוֹלָם in place of the MT's לְעוֹלָ֣ם, see Syr. ܡܢ ܥܠܡ. The other emendations reflect 11Q5's יסדתני, with a 1cs suffix, in place of the MT's 3ms (יְסַדְתָּֽם, with the עֵדֹתֶיךָ as the preferred antecedent) and מדעתכה for the MT's מֵעֵדֹתֶ֑יךָ (which is much less likely in the context of the psalm, as דַעַת only occurs in v. 66, and that without a 2ms suffix, whereas we have עֵדֹתֶיךָ in vv. 14, 22, 24, 31, 36, 46, 59, 79, 95, 99, 111, 119, 125, 129, 138, 144, 146, 157, 167, 168). It is very possibly the result of metathesis between the ע and ד.
The alternative object reflects Symmachus's τὰ ἀπ ̓ἀρχῆς ἔγνων ἀπὸ τῶν μαρτυριῶν σου for the MT's adverbial קֶ֣דֶם.
The alternative reading of כִּי as a causal subordinator is also explicit in Syr. ܡܛܠ ܕ, while Targum Psalms' ארום, the LXX's ὅτι and Jerome's quod are potentially ambiguous, but the latter two point more in the direction of the preferred complementizer reading. This is also our preference because an object-less יָ֭דַעְתִּי clause seems very incomplete. (Of course, this problem is avoided if Symmachus's reading – noted above – is followed.)
- For support for the alternative causal subordinator reading, see the EÜ.
- For support for the preferred complementizer reading, see the BDS, BXT4ª, CEB, CSB, ELB, ESV, JPS 1985, KJV, Luther 2017, NABRE, NASB, NBS, NET, NFC, NIV, NVSR, REB, SG21, TOB, ZÜR.

v. 153

v. 154

v. 155

The gender mismatch between רָח֣וֹק and יְשׁוּעָ֑ה is alleviated by both the LXX and Jerome's adverbial reading of רָח֣וֹק (μακρὰν and longe, respectively), though for such an adverbial reading we would expect בְּרָח֑וֹק as in לָמָ֣ה יְ֭הוָה תַּעֲמֹ֣ד בְּרָח֑וֹק (Ps 10:1) or מֵרָחֹ֥ק as in וּ֝קְרוֹבַ֗י מֵרָחֹ֥ק עָמָֽדוּ (Ps 38:12). A close parallel, with the expected agreement, is Prov 15:29 – רָח֣וֹק יְ֭הוָה מֵרְשָׁעִ֑ים. Joüon-Muroaka maintain, however, that "The adjective רָחוֹק distant, remote remains invariable and is treated like an adverb (far)" (§148b), i.e., an adverb of suppletion, that is, "the name given to diverse parts of speech which, in view of the dearth of specifically adverbial formations, function as adverbs" (§102c).

On the other hand, 11QPsª does not contain יְשׁוּעָ֑ה, so the sense is probably You are far from evildoers (in contrast to קָר֣וֹב אַתָּ֣ה יְהוָ֑ה in v. 151, as indicated by the alternative.

v. 156

The alternative PP represents the Syr. ܒܕܝܢܝ̈ܟ ("by your judgments"; Taylor 2020, 527) for the MT's כְּֽמִשְׁפָּטֶ֥יךָ, as read also במשפטיך in Kennicott mss 133 and 148.

Though the LXX and a number of Hebrew mss (see VTH vol. 2, 420) have singular, משפטך / τὸ κρίμα σου (though see S' and La τα κριματα in Rahlfs' apparatus), the other ancient versions and manuscript evidence, including 11QPsª, contain the mater yod.

v. 157

v. 158

An alternative has not been provided for the LXX's causal ὅτι τὰ λόγιά σου οὐκ ἐφυλάξαντο or the Syr. complementizer, ܘܝܕܥܬ ܕܡܐܡܪܟ ܠܐ ܢܛܪܘ, as both are possible – if rare – functions of אֲשֶׁר. It is probable, however, that these ancient versions (especially the Peshitta), unsure how to handle the rare hithpol. וָֽאֶתְקוֹטָ֑טָה (ἐξετηκόμην; waste away, LSJ) and ܘܝܕܥܬ ܕ (and I know that...; Taylor 2020, 527) rendered the verse according to sense.

Kennicott mss 73, 97 and 133, on the other hand, read כִּי (cf. most modern versions). The preferred view adopts a much more common function of אֲשֶׁר, though the relative clause is detached from its head by the verb, וָֽאֶתְקוֹטָ֑טָה, which is probably what has put most modern translations off this interpretation. Only the BDS, DHH, NBS, NVSR, REB and SG21 seem to maintain the preferred relative sense of אֲשֶׁר: I was cut to the quick when I saw traitors who had not regard for your word (REB). (Note: the ZÜR [cf. Luther 2017] contains the complementizer, as the Syr.: Ich habe Abtrünnige gesehen, und mich widerte an, dass sie dein Wort nicht halten).

The only other instance of a hithpol. of קוט is found in Ps 139:21 (הֲלֽוֹא־מְשַׂנְאֶ֖יךָ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶשְׂנָ֑א וּ֝בִתְקוֹמְמֶ֗יךָ אֶתְקוֹטָֽט) and is accompanied by a בְּ, so does not shed light on the most likely function of אֲשֶׁר here. See, however, a similar adverbial אֲשֶׁר (though with opposite emotion) in שִׂ֤ישׂוּ וְגִ֙ילוּ֙ עֲדֵי־עַ֔ד אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֣י בוֹרֵ֑א (Isa 65:18).

v. 159

The alternative PP represents the Syr. ܒܛܝܒܘܬܟ ("by your grace"; Taylor 2020, 527) for the MT's כְּֽמִשְׁפָּטֶ֥יךָ, as read also בחסדך in Kennicott mss 30, 76 and 133 (cf. the DHH, NABRE, NET, REB).

v. 160

Both the LXX (τῶν λόγων σου) and Jerome (verborum tuorum) read the MT's דְּבָרְךָ֥ as plural (cf. Kennicott ms 141 and 11QPsª's דבריך/דבריכה). Similarly, Targum Psalms reads כל דיני צדקתך ("all your righteous ordinances"; Stec 2004, 218) and the Syr. ܟܠܗܘܢ ܕܝܢ̈ܐ ܕܙܕܝܩܘܬܟ ("all your righteous judgments"; Taylor 2020, 527) for the singular מִשְׁפַּ֥ט in the MT (probably intended as distributive – every one, ESV; jedes Urteil, ELB; todo decreto, BTX4ª – but see a number of Hebrew mss reading משפטי in VTH vol. 2, 420 and De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 81).

Note: 11QPSª reads כול משפט צדק, lacking the suffix of the MT's צִדְקֶֽךָ.

v. 161

The alternative prepositional phrase represents the yod found on the ketiv. (followed by the LXX's τῶν λόγων σου – but see του λογου in Rahlfs' L-pau – and Jerome's verba tua), while the preferred qere is read in Targum Psalms' פתגמך and the Syr. ܡܠܬܟ. The singular ומדברך is also found in a substantial number of Hebrew mss (see VTH vol. 2, 420; but see 11Q5's ומדבריכה).

v. 162

The alternative prepositional phrase represents 11Q5's מִן of comparison (ממוצא...).

Note - The plural of אִמְרָתֶ֑ךָ is read by the LXX's τὰ λόγιά σου, though this time it is singular in Jerome's Hebr. (unlike the ketiv of the previous verse). There are also a small number of Hebrew mss with the mater yod (Kennicott 74, 97, 131, 133, 148).

Note – Revell (2004) has judged this form to be pausal, as it lacks the mater yod in the MT and fits the accent pattern of the atnakh.

v. 163

The conjunction, וְ, though absent in the MT, is present in the LXX's δέ, Jerome's autem, Syr. ܘ and a large number of Hebrew mss (see VTH vol. 2, 420). It is clear the sense of the entire bicolon justifies contrastive semantics so this addition may be interpretive.

v. 164

The alternative emended verb represents the reading of 11Q5.
The numeral שֶׁ֣בַע has been analyzed as a "selecting modifier" in similar fashion to how less-specific quantifiers would be (Croft 2022, 109-111).

v. 165

Despite a few Hebrew mss containing the plene yod in תורתיך (Kennicott 74, 76, 97, 133, 148, 252), all the ancient versions read singular your law, so the vowel is best understood as pausal (see Revell).

v. 166

The verb ἠγάπησα, as read in the LXX has not been represented as an alternative to the MT's עָשִֽׂיתִי as:

(1) there is no Hebrew textual evidence for אהבתי (though Kennicott ms 40 reads חפצתי),

(2) both Aquila and Symmachus read ἐποίησα (see also Sa and La-G in Rahlfs' apparatus) and thus,

(3) it is likely to be:

(a) a translation ad sensum rather than textually derived, or

(b) an error caused by ἠγάπησεν in the following verse.

v. 167

The verb ἠγάπησεν, as read in the LXX has perhaps understood its Hebrew Vorlage as a 3fs weyiqtol, וַאָהֲבַתָּם. Jerome's Gallican Psalter, however, reads the 1cs dilexi ea, as the MT's וָאֹהֲבֵ֥ם (see also Sa and La in Rahlfs' apparatus). The 3fs is followed by the BTX4ª's Mi alma guarda tus testimonios, y los ama intensamente and Luther 2017's Meine Seele hält deine Zeugnisse und liebt sie sehr.

v. 168

v. 169

The emended alternative PP בדברך for the MT's כִּדְבָרְךָ֥ is found in a number of Hebrew manuscripts (see De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 81) and the Syr. ܒܡܠܬܟ (cf. the NET's Give me insight by your word).

There is also a lexical issue in the Syr. choice of ܐܚܢܝ (restore my life, Taylor 2020, 529), derived from חַיֵּנִי (as also read in Kennicott 40).

v. 170

The emended alternative PP באמרתך for the MT's כְּ֝אִמְרָתְךָ֗ is found in a number of Hebrew manuscripts (see De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 81) and the Syr. ܒܡܠܬܟ.

v. 171

The alternative PP represents 11Q5's תהלה לכה as similarly read by the plural suffix in the Syr. ܬܫܒ̈ܚܬܟ ("your praises") for the MT's תְּהִלָּ֑ה ("praise"), see the singular your praise in the NABRE and REB and ta louange in the NFC and SG21).

v. 172

v. 173

v. 174

v. 175

The Syr. singular, ܕܝܢܟ ܗܘ ܢܥܕܪܢܝ ("as for your judgment, it will help me"; Taylor 2020, 529), for the MT's plural מִשְׁפָּטֶ֥ךָ יַעֲזְרֻֽנִי, has been provided as an alternative (≈ the DHH's que tu justicia me ayude). There is abundant textual evidence, however, for the plene readings of both משפטיך and יעזרוני (see VTH vol. 2, 420 and De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones: Vol. 4, 81-82).

v. 176

The alternative object represents 11Q5's עדוותיכה, elsewhere unattested among Hebrew manuscripts.

Bibliography

Auffret, P. 2006. Mais Tu Élargirais mon Cœur: Nouvelle Étude Structurelle du Psaume 119. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Barthélemy, Dominique. 2005. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Tome 4. Psaumes. Vol. 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

BDB = Brown, Francis, Driver, Samuel R. & Briggs, Charles A. 1977. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BHRG = Van der Merwe, C. H. J., Naudé, J. A., Kroeze, J. H. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

CAD = Roth, Martha, T (ed.). 1956-2010. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute.

Croft, William. 2022. Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DCH = David J. A. Clines, David J. A. (ed). 1993-2011. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

De-Rossi, Giovanni B. 2012 (1784). Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti, Vol. IV. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Fassberg, Stephen. 2020. “כלום יש מ"ם אנקליטית בלשון המקרא?” In סוגיות בלשון המקרא, edited by Michael Rijke, 87–104. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Fokkelman, J. P. 2003. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: at the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis. Vol. III: The Remaining 65 Psalms. Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 235-270.

Freedman, D. N. 1999. Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gesenius = Gesenius, W. Donner, H. Rüterswörden, U. Renz, J. Meyer, R. (eds.). 2013. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18. Auflage Gesamtausgabe. Berlin: Springer.

GKC = Gesenius, Wilhelm & Kautsch, Emil. 1909. A. E. Cowley (trans.) Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Goldingay, John. 2008. Psalms 90-150. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Ḥakham, Amos. 1979. ספר תהלים: ספרים ג–ה (in Hebrew; The Book of Psalms: Books 3-5). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

HALOT = Ludwig Koehler, Ludwig & Baumgartner, Walter et al. 1994-2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill.

Harper's = E. A. Andrews, C. T. Lewis, C. Short. 1879. Harper's Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund's Latin-German Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ibn Ezra, Abraham on Psalms.

Joüon, Paul & Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

LSJ = Liddel, Henry G., Scott, R. & Jones, Henry, S. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Muraoka, T. 2016. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven: Peeters.

NIDOTTE = VanGemeren, Willem (ed.). 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Revell, E.J. 2004. “A List of Pausal Forms in the TeNaK(Preliminary Version).” The Pericope Group.

Reynolds, Kent. 2010. Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119. Leiden: Brill.

Sjörs, Ambjörn. 2018. Historical Aspects of Standard Negation in Semitic. Leiden: Brill.

Soll, Will. 1987. "The Question of Psalm 119:9." JBL 106, no. 4: 687-688.

________. 1991. Psalm 119: Matrix, Form and Setting. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America.

Stec, David M. 2004. The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Taylor, Richard A. in Bali, Joseph & George Kiraz (eds.). 2020. The Psalms According to the Syriac Peshitta Version with English Translation. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

TDOT = Botterweck, G. Johannes & Ringgren, Helmer (eds.). 1978. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume III. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

TLOT = Jenni, Ernst & Westermann, Claus (eds.). 1997. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, Volumes I-III. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

VTH = Benjamin Kennicott (ed.). 1776. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum: cum variis lectionibus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Psalm 119 Grammar