Psalm 18 Grammar

Psalm Overview

• Grammar
• Semantics
• Story behind the Psalm
• Discourse
• Poetics

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.)

Expand

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 18

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.)

Grammar Legend

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 final phrase of Psalm 18:1 in the MT reads from the hand of Saul (מִיַּד שָׁאוּל׃), but the parallel text in 2 Samuel 22:1 reads מִכַּף שָׁאוּל׃ "from the palm of Saul". Both readings are probably best as they stand, the changes being a result of stylistic preferences. Most versions use the same word to translate both of the lexemes in question (כַּף and יָד) not only here but in other places in Scripture, and are thus inconclusive. For example, the LXX uses χειρὸς to translate both יָד (e.g.,: Gen 3:22; 22:6; 30:35; 38:30; 41:42; 49, etc) and כַּף (e.g., : Gen 20:5; 31:42; 40:11; Exod 4:4; 9:29, 33; 33:22, 23). Internally, both choices are viable. On the one hand, 2 Sam 22:1 is the only time in scripture where מִכַּ֥ף שָׁאֽוּל׃ “from the palm of Saul” is used; everywhere else is מִיַד שׁאוּל “from the hand of Saul” (see 2 Sam 12:7; Hos 13:14; 49:16; 89:49). On the other hand, we do find an instance where two instances of מִכַּף follow each other ‏מִכַּף מֶֽלֶךְ־אֲרָם וּמִכַּף מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל “From the palm of the King of Aram and from the palm of the king of Israel” (2 Kgs 16:7). Throughout the Hymn, the Psalms text shows variation where the Samuel text prefers repetition (Young 2005, 57).
• Most modern translations take דָוִד “David” as the antecedent of who (אֲשֵׁר). For example, “A psalm of David...who addressed...” (ESV). The LXX and Vulgate, however, reflect an interpretation where אשׁר is a free relative clause. In the parallel verse in 2 Sam 22:1, it is David who is the subject of the דבר verb: וַיְדַבֵּר דָּוִד לַיהוָה אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת “And David spoke the words of this song to the Lord.” This strongly favours taking David as the subject of the דבר verb—and therefore the antecedent of אשר in Ps 18:1 as well. Note also that some Coptic translations of the LXX omit this relative particle; see Rahlfs 1931:120. Also, taking the relative as the object of the verb would create redundancy with the clear object later in the clause (viz., אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת).
• The waw in the phrase “and from the hand of Saul” (וּמִיַּד שָׁאוּל) most likely expresses “and especially”. Hupfeld (1888, 280) was not incorrect in saying that the phrase ומיד שאול “lags...behind inappropriately” (hinkt...unpassend nach). This use of waw, however, is not unattested. GKC (§154a note 1) recognizes a use of waw that expresses “and especially̦” (see also Isa 2:1; Job 10:17; 2 Chr 16:14). That is, the waw is epexegetical with focus (BHRG recognizes epexgetical waw between clauses; see §40.23.4.2). The intent is that Saul is mentioned “because he was the harshest” to David (לפי שהיה קשה עליו; Rashi; cf. Baethgen 1904, 50).

v. 2

• The MT of Psalm 18:2 and 2 Samuel 22:2 differ in that Psalm 18:2 has the additional clause אֶרְחָמְךָ יְהוָה חִזְקִי I shall keep loving you you YHWH my strength. The presence of this clause is well-supported by external evidence and contextual considerations. It could also be argued that this clause dropped out of the text of Samuel. All the textual witnesses for the Psalms text as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q85, 11Q7) supports it. (Note that 11Q7 reads perfect רחמ֯[תיכה] [Martínez et. al. 1998, 58] instead of the imperfect). For the Samuel text, all textual witnesses lack it except the Lucianic Text of Samuel (Ἀγαπήσω σε [Marcos and Saiz 1998, 156]) and the daughter versions of the LXX (Armenian reflects amabo te; Georgian შეგიყუარო შენ “I love you”). If the Lucianic text inherited this reading from the Old Greek Samuel [OG] and it later dropped out in the Greek, it would have had to be at an earlier date, since there is no trace of it in the revisers or in any known quotations of church fathers. Moreover “alternative readings from different sources” (Marcos 2013, 66) are known to have arisen throughout the transmission of the Antiochene text (the ancient substratum of the Lucianic text), making it very likely that the phrase was added during the transmission of this text in an effort to harmonize it with the Psalms text. Textual allegiance to the Lucianic text has also been established for the Armenian translations of 1–2 Samuel (Cowe 2020), explaining this agreement in that daughter version (the Georgian evidence remains understudied). All this evidence suggests that the clause was not in the OG of Samuel. But, was it in OG Samuel's Hebrew Vorlage? The two different DSS witnesses of the Psalms-text show that graphic confusion was possible—the shared letters within the sequence ויאמר ארחמך gave rise to a reading with the perfect (רחמ֯[תיכה] in 11Q7), while 4Q85 retained the imperfect (ארחמׄך֯ in ). The phrase יהוה חזקי (MT Ps 18:2) also bears resemblance to the very next phrase יהוה סלעי (Ps 18:3). Thus, it is not unimaginable that a scribe's eye skipped over the רחם-verb after ויאמר (ויאמר in both texts) as well as the phrase יהוה חזקי, since the very next phrase (יהוה סלעי) resembles it closely. Moreover, the absence of YHWH described as the psalmist's “strength” (חזקי) in-MT Samuel makes the introductory epithets incongruent with the rest of the psalm. The introductory epithets in vv. 3ff mostly describe YHWH as the psalmist's defense, whereas in the latter half of the psalm (e.g., Psalm 18:33–44//2 Sam 22:33–44) YHWH clearly gives the psalmist “strength” to fight his battles. Thus, the presence of יהוה חזקי “YHWH my strength” followed by the defense-like epithets clearly foreshadow the two halves of the psalm where the Psalmist is first delivered (vv. 4–32) and then is strengthened for victory (v. 33–51).

v. 3

• The MT text of Psalms 18:3 reads אֵלִי צוּרִי my God (is) my rock whereas 2 Samuel 22:3 has the consonants אלהי צורי vocalised in the MT a אֱלֹהֵי צוּרִי. External and internal considerations suggest maintaining the Psalms text as it is. It is likely that the Samuel text should be revocalized to אלהָי. Externally, 11Q7 supports the reading of the psalm's consonantal text (אלי צורי). For the Samuel text, nearly every witness reflects אלהָי “my God” instead of אלהֵי “God of”. Indeed, the “God of my rock” does not make much sense; it is unclear why the Masoretes would have preferred this vocalization. The difference is most likely one of style original to the composition of each version of the psalm. The title אֵלִי usually “appears in direct address to the deity, and twice emphasizes a personal relationship with the deity...this sentiment complements the unique opening of v. 2 ‘I love you, Lord’” (Young 2005, 58).
• The text of MT 2 Samuel 22:3 contains an additional portion at the end of the verse: וּמְנוּסִי מֹשִׁעִי מֵחָמָס תֹּשִׁעֵנִי׃ and my refuge, my deliverer, who delivers me out of evil. MT-Psalms 18:3 does not contain this portion. The text ומנוסי משעי מחמס תשעני most likely fell out due to a scribal error of an eye skip. All ancient versions support both texts. Thus, if this additional portion was either added or fell out, it must have happened early in the transmission of the Hebrew text. It is not clear why someone would have added this portion of text since the second person verb (תֹּשִׁעֵנִי) creates a sudden participant shift. Also, a scribe's eye may have skipped from מִשְׂגַּבִּי to תֹּשִׁעֵנִי, such that the portion fell out. Finally, the lack of waw in מִשְׂגַּבִּֽי creates a problematic grouping, whereas the addition of the portion creates two groups of two epithets in the b-line, with each group's members joined by waw. We therefore restore these consonants to the MT-psalm, and vocalize according to MT 2 Samuel 22:3.
• The Masoretic text of 2 Samuel 22:2 has וּמְפַלְטִי־לִֽי lit., “and my deliverer to me”. But the piel of פלט never marks an argument with lamed except in the stock phrase לְנֵצַח “forever”. We, therefore, choose to maintain MT-Psalms' וּמְפַלְטִי my rescuer. The phrase לִי most likely arose due to scribal error on account of the proliferation of the surrounding lameds and yods.
• We have divided vv. 2 and 3 as consisting of three separate clauses. Some translations understand both 2 and 3 to form a single clause. Under this interpretation the יהוה that begins v. 3 is a second appositional item to the -ךָ of אֶרְחַמְךָ “I love you” in v. 2 and all of the following appositives follow. E.g., JPS “I adore you, O Lord, my strength, O Lord, my crag, my fortress, my rescuer, my God, my rock in whom I seek refuge, my shield, my mighty champion, my haven.” Other translations keep vv. 2 and 3 separate, but treat v. 3 as one clause. E.g., NASB “The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” Finally, some translations keep vv. 2 and 3 separate, but treat v. 3 as two clauses. E.g., NLT “The LORD is my rock, my fortress, and my savior; my God is my rock...”; cf. Syriac ܐܠܗܐ ܬܩܝܦܐ<. We prefer the third option. Functionally speaking, an “appositive” that serves as an ascription (as opposed to merely specifying the head noun) to the head noun is semantically identical to a predicational construction (see Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 1356–7). So the real issue here is the addressee of v. 3. Given the fact that v. 4 is spoken in the third person, the addressee in v. 3 is most likely not YHWH, but some other group of people (see participant analysis). Additionally, cf. Ps 144:2, clearly drew on Psalm 18 and used the titles in the third person. These considerations eliminate option 1. A clausal break after וּמְפַלְטִי is supported by the Masoretic accents as well as the lack of coordination when the previous two appositives had coordination, thereby eliminating option 2. Option 3 is therefore preferred. Note, however, that the 2ms verb form תושעני further complicates the question of participant reference here.
• Restoring וּמְנוּסִי מֹשִׁעִי מֵחָמָס תֹּשִׁעֵנִי׃ (and my refuge, my deliverer, who delivers me from violence.) to the psalm's text means that מִשְׂגַּבִּי is no longer grouped with what precedes (וְקֶֽרֶן־יִשְׁעִי), as in the Psalms text, but is grouped with what follows, i.e., the beginning of the addition (...וּמְפַלְטִי). While the Greek witnesses of the Psalms text group מִשְׂגַּבִּי with what precedes (since they, of course, do not contain the extra material from Samuel), the interpunction in 2 Samuel in Vaticanus for this verse suggests it be grouped with what follows. Most importantly, however, grouping v. 3b&c according to the accents of Samuel brings a nice balance to the two lines—two groups of two epithets each joined by waw (cf.Sanders 2000, 294).
• Note that, in terms of line grouping, the first two lines of v. 3 (יְהוָה ׀ סַֽלְעִי וּמְצוּדָתִי וּמְפַלְטִי אֵלִי צוּרִי אֶֽחֱסֶה־בּוֹ) should be grouped with v. 2. This is primarily on the basis of poetic considerations. Two sets of three-line units bring balance to the six lines, given their poetic features. In the first three lines (vv. 2–3b) each contain a name of God (יהוה and אל). The second three-line unit (vv.3c–e) is bound together by a cluster of poetic features, most notably the repetition of the letter mem, the syntactic similarity of the first two lines, and the inclusio created by root/sound repetition of the ends of 3c (יִשְׁעִי) and 3e (תֹּשִׁעֵנִי).

v. 4

• The Dead Sea scrolls read ומהולל אקראה instead of MT-Psalms' מְהֻלָּל אֶקְרָא. We prefer the MT's reading. Despite the hesitancy by the DJD editors, the digital images make it very clear that 11QPs-c reads ומהולל אקראה as compared with the MT's מְהֻלָּל אֶקְרָ֣א. In other words, a waw was added at the beginning and the verb was written as cohortative instead of indicative. The text of the MT is to be preferred here, however. Scribes commonly added waws to poetic lines; additionally, a scribe is less likely to omit a he since—in modern parlance—it is the more “marked” term. In other words, a scribe would have been less likely to make a word semantically more underspecified. Finally, the external evidence weighs heavily here. Not a single ancient version witnesses these additions. Note that the reading of the LXX (αἰνῶν “praising”) reflects an active participle, which would be vocalized as מְהַלֵּל (instead of מְהֻלָל). Note, however, that 4QPs-c explicitly reads the Pual, which is interesting support for the MT vocalization.
• We understand the word praiseworthy (מְהֻלָּל) as an adverbial accusative. Nearly every modern version understands מְהֻלָּל as a relative clause; e.g., ESV “I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised.” While it is not unheard of for the relative clause head to be separate from the clause (Holmstedt 2016, 186–191), it is rare, if not impossible, for the clause itself to precede the head (Holmstedt 2016, 106). Additionally, none of the ancient versions that read מְהֻלָּל as the beginning of v. 4 (cf. the Peshitta, apparently taking it with the previous verse) understand it as a relative clause. There are various proposals to solve the difficulty. GKC (§132b) reads מְהֻלָּל as the object here, but the psalmist's “calling out” followed by God's hearing/the psalmist's salvation is a very common trope throughout the psalter (e.g., 3:5; 4:2; 4:4; 17:6; etc. even later in this Psalm—18:7), and this is most likely the case here. Baethgen (1901, 50) suggests taking both מְהֻלָּל and the following יהוה as direct speech (viz., “I cry out ‘O Praised One’...). But this yields an unclear logic with the next phrase. The most preferable solution is that of Keil and Delitzsch (1996, 158), who understand מְהֻלָּל as an adverbial accusative (viz., “I will call upon the Lord as one worthy to be praised”). This makes good sense in this psalm because YHWH's capacity as one who is praiseworthy is connected with his terrifying presence (cf. Ps 48:2, 6ff; 1 Chr 16:25ff) as well as his exalting the humble (Cf. Ps 139:3, 9; 145:3, 14)—two themes that are prevalent in this psalm (see vv. 8–15; 27).
• As Rahlfs notes, this verse is lineated as a single line in many witnesses of the LXX (1931, 100). According to Sanders, this (lack of) line division “may have been inspired by και” and thus “It is clear that the colometry suggested by the Masoretic accents is preferable" (Sanders 2000, 295).
• Note our translation of מְהֻלָּל as “since he is praisworthy”. This is due to both its adverbial function and its word order. It is fronted most likely to specify the reason why the psalmist feels like he can cry out to YHWH.

v. 5

• There are two main options for the consonantal text of v. 5a: (1) אפפוני חבלי מות, as we have it in the Psalms and (2) אפפוני משברי מות, as we have it in Samuel. Based on the context, literary considerations and the likelihood of a scribal error, we prefer the reading of option 2, breaker waves of death (מִשְׁבְּרֵי מָוֶת). Cf., Cross and Freedman 1953, 22. The complexity of this problem stems from the fact that both חבל and משבר have two ways of being vocalized and in one of those ways, the meanings overlap. Both חֵבֶל “labor pains” and מַשְׁבֵּר “mouth of the womb”, has been interpreted by the versions as referring to “pain”. Thus the LXX uses ὠδῖνες “labor pain, anguish” to translate both the consonants חבל (Ps 114:3; Job 21:17; Jer 13:21; Hos 13:13, etc.) as well as משבר (II Kgs 19:3; Isa 37:3). The only two versions that unambiguously support חֶבֶל “rope” are Aquila (σχοινία “cords,” but cf. Symmachus τρώσεις “wound”) and Jerome (funes mortis “ropes of death”). In all other cases, the versions could support either reading. In Samuel, the versions are roughly the same. Internal considerations suggest that the consonant מִשׁברי “waves” was the original reading. If חֶבֶל “rope” was the intended reading (as the MT currently has it vocalized), then death here would be pictured as a hunter (Keil and Delitzsch 1996, 159). The context makes it clear, however, the setting here is death pictured as water, in which case מִשׁברי “waves” is much more fitting (cf. Jonah 2:4; Ps 42:8; 93:4). The reading חבלי may have arisen through dittography due to the similar endings of אפפוני and יבעתוני (after which is חבלי in v. 6). It is noteworthy that חבלי/משברי in v. 5 and חבלי in v. 6 would have likely occurred one on top of the other in a typical column structure, which could also have prompted confusion. Note that semantically leveling could also play a role as elsewhere in the psalm, though in this case, the lexical repetition is unusual in the Psalms text, which prefers variation. We may add the following literary observation in support of משברי. If adopted we get a nice chiastic semantic pairing with alliteration:

A משברי מות

B נחלי בליעל

B’ חבלי שאול

A’ מוקשי מות

• MT 2 Sam 22:5 begins with the particle כִּי “for,” whereas the Psalms text does not. We prefer not to impose this כִּי in the Psalms text. In fact, the כִּי most likely represents a facilitating addition of a conjunction in 2 Sam 22, that is, a way to explicitly bring out the implicit logical connection between vv. 4 and 5.

v. 6

v. 7

• There are two differences between the Psalms and Samuel texts here. The first is the use of I cry for help (אֲשַׁוֵּעַ) in the Psalms text vs. the use of I cry out (אֶקְרָא) in 2 Samuel. The second concerns the phrase it comes before him(לְפָנָיו תָּבוֹא); it is present in the Psalms text but absent in Samuel. The presence of אשוע rather than אקרא is a matter of style. It is therefore maintained. There is no external evidence to support reading אקרא in the Psalms text. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls preserved here support the reading אשוע. All the versions use terms with which they elsewhere translate both אשוע and אקרא, and so no variants are reflected. Internally the difference here conforms to the stylistic tendency already seen—that the Psalms version prefers variation where the Samuel version prefers repetition. The phrase לפניו תבוא will also be maintained since the difference between the Ps and 2 Sam texts in this regard is more likely to be a result of לפניו תבוא dropping out than being added. External evidence for the Psalms text supports the presence of לפניו תבוא. The external evidence for Samuel may point in a different direction. The Vulgate maintains veniet (= תבוא) and the Peshitta maintains ܩܕܡܘܗܝ ܥܠ݂ܬ (equals לפניו תבוא) (although that could be the result of harmonization towards the Psalms text). Seeing that Jerome translated Samuel before translating the Psalms (from Hebrew), it is unlikely that he would have harmonized the Samuel text to the Psalms text. Additionally, it is possible that לפניו תבוא could have fallen out due to haplography. The word באזניו resembles the ends of both לפניו and תבוא, and the final letters in ושועתי resemble the end of לפניו and the beginning of תבוא.
• MT Psalms 18:7 has the bare yiqtol form יִשְׁמַע he hears whereas MT 2 Sam 22:7 has the wayyiqtol וַיִּשְׁמַע and he heard. Since the external data favors both readings, and since the addition of waw conforms to a stylistic preference for waw as well as a discernible literary motivation, it seems that both readings are unique to their compositions. The LXX-Psalms and Vulgate-Psalms support the reading of the Psalms passage, whereas the Aramaic versions of the Psalms text contain a waw (ܘܫܡ݂ܥ; ומקב). Psalms-Targum's tendency for expansion has been noted (Stec 2020), and Peshitta-Psalms has been noted to be “more concerned with the reader than with fidelity to each of the details of the text” (Carbajosa 2020). The difference between them fundamentally is that in Samuel, the “hearing” event is explicitly sequential to the “crying out event”. In the Psalms, the sequentiality is only implicit. This may be a matter of style, since it is not clear how a waw could have dropped out or accidentally been added here; the Psalms text is only fuller (because of extra waws) twice, whereas the Samuel text is fuller six times. Note too that the Samuel text may be concerned to unambiguously place this narrative in the past (assuming one reads the previous as ארקא as an instance of preterite yiqtol), given its canonical place at the end of the Samuel narratives. In this case, it shows its uniqueness to its literary setting and thus its originality for that composition. It seems best to therefore maintain both texts.
• Most modern translations render בַּצַּר לִי with something like “in my distress” (e.g. ESV). This could either be temporal or spatial (cf. the versions, like Jerome's in tribulatione mea “in my tribulation”). The previous language of “surrounding” (אֲפָפוּנִי, סְבָבוּנִי) suggests spacial imagery. And that is our preferred interpretation. We therefore analyze לִי “to me” as part of an asyndetic relative clause “In the narrow (place) [distress] that was to me”, viz.., “In the narrow place I experienced." For the lamed of “experience” see Jenni 2000, 106). The LXX translates as temporal, however (καὶ ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί “and when I was being afflicted”). Similarly, Jenni (1992, 328) prefers a temporal reading, on analogy with the fuller formula בְּיוֹם צַר־לִי׃ “in the day of my distress” (ESV, Ps 102:3), with the article “substantivizing” the sentence. In this case a clause (lit., “distress is to me”) would be diagrammed as the object of the preposition. It is concerning, however, that Jenni gives the construction בַּצַּר לְ its own section under the temporal function of בְּ. Additionally צַר “carries with it the distinct notion of spatial narrowness” (Fabry 2003, 456).

v. 8

• The 2 Samuel text has the phrase “foundations of the heavens” (מוֹסְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם) instead of and the foundations of the mountains (וּמוֹסְדֵי הָרִים). The former is most likely an error. Either it was changed to conform to the expected “heaven and earth” parallelism in other theophanic passages, or else it was influenced by the reference to "heavens" in v. 10. Moreover, it is not clear what the “foundations of heavens” are—no such concept is referred to elsewhere in scripture (cf. ח֥וּג שָׁ֝מַ֗יִם “dome of the heavens” in Job 22:14, but that is a singularity). One finds the “foundations of the mountains," however, in a similar context in Deut 32:22.
• The clause חָרָה לוֹ lit., “there was anger to him” is used for the meaning he became angry. Verbs of emotion are often part of impersonal constructions where the subject is expressed in a prepositional phrase (Gen 4:6; 1 King 1:1; Hag 1:6; Isa 23:12; etc. See JM §152d).

v. 9

v. 10

v. 11

• The text of 2 Samuel has the consonants וירא, realized in the MT as a Niphal verb from ראה “he was seen” (ESV), whereas the Psalms text has the consonants וידא, apparently from the root דאה, which has to do with flying or gliding (cf. the name of the bird of prey “kite” [דָּאָה] (DCH) in Lev 11:14). We prefer the latter reading here, on both external and internal grounds. “Flying“ or “soaring” makes perfect sense here, and it is the rarer word of the two. Finally, the ancient versions of the Psalms text unanimously support this reading: LXX ἐπετάσθη “he was spread” >> “he flew” (NETS); Sexta ἐβαστάχθη “he was lifted up”; Gal/Jerome volavit “he flew”; Syriac ܘܛܣ݂ “and he flew” (the Targum provides the explanatory gloss ודבר בתקוף “and he lead with strength”).

v. 12

• MT Psalms 18:12 simply has the yiqtol form יָשֶׁת whereas MT 2 Sam 22:12 has the wayyiqtol form וַיָּשֶׁת. We prefer the reading without waw here in Psalm 18:12. MT Samuel has a tendency to add waws to verbal forms (see Young 2007, 64), most likely to make the narrative more sequential. V. 12, however, most likely describes the attendant circumstances of the main action in the previous verse, not a subsequent event (see verbal semantics).
• MT Psalms 18:12 has the phrase חֶשְׁכַת־מַיִם “darkness of waters” whereas MT 2 Sam 22:12 חַֽשְׁרַת־מַיִם sieve of water. The difference concerns the first word of this: חשכה in Psalms and חשרה in Samuel. Although the external evidence favors חשכת, internal considerations and the direction of the change strongly favor חשרת, which we have preferred. Virtually all of the ancient witnesses support the consonants חשכת in the Psalms text (see remark). All of the ancient witnesses also support these same consonants in the Samuel text except Jerome, who translates cribrans aquas “sifting waters”. Similarly, HALOT and DCH recommend the meaning “sieve”. The verb חָשַׁר “to sift” is known from Post-Biblical Hebrew (cf. the Ugaritic cognate ḫṯr “sieve” see McCarter 1984, 466). In one usage, this action is compared to that of clouds; in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah we read that the clouds “sift them (the rains) like the water of a sieve” (חוֹשְׁרִים אוֹתָן כְּמִין כְּבָרָה) (13:10). Thus the חַֽשְׁרַת־מַיִם would mean “sieve of the waters (=rain)” viz., a rain cloud. A rain cloud is precisely what the text is prescribing as God's canopy, and fits with the following appositive עָבֵי שְׁחָקִים “clouds of the skies”. The unfamiliar word חשרת could have easily been changed either by assimilation (conscious or unconscious) to the previous חֹשֶׁך in the verse, or by simple graphic confusion. In either case, this simpler reading predominated (with harmonization to the Psalms text in the Samuel tradition), as seen by its wide support throughout the transmission of both texts.
• We take the unit יָשֶׁת חֹשֶׁךְ סִתְרוֹ as a ditransitive clause “He made darkness his cover.” That is, both חֹשֶׁךְ “darkness” and סֶתֶר “cover” are both affected by the verb. The LXX (“and he made darkness his hideaway” [καὶ ἔθετο σκότος ἀποκρυφὴν αὐτοῦ]) and Vulgate (“He made darkness his hiding place” [posuit tenebras latibulum suum]) translate this clause with two objects in the accusative. The Peshitta translates using a prepositional phrase, however ( ܣܡ ܚܫܘܟܐ ܠܓܢ݂ܝܗ݂ lit., “he set darkness to his hiding place.” Whenever the verb שִׁית means “to make X Y” it never takes the second argument (Y) with a preposition. DCH lists Ps 73:28 as a possible exception, but see Jenni (1992:196).
• The MT has a significantly longer text here in Psalms than in 2 Sam. The MT Psalms' text is to be preferred. The Samuel text lacks סִתְרוֹ “his covering”, but its presence in our psalm's text is confirmed by 8Q2 (Baillet et al. 1962, 149) as well as other major witnesses: LXX ἀποκρυφὴν “hideaway” (cf. LXX Job 2:14); Jerome latibulum suum “his hiding place”. If סתרו was in the Vorlage of Samuel (it is found throughout the Greek tradition of Samuel), it is easy to see how one of the three consecutive words that begin with samek and end with waw could have dropped out.
• Codex Alexandrinus combines 12a and b into one line. However, Vaticanus, Siniaticus as well as 8Q2 assume three cola whose divisions conform to that reflected by the Masoretic accents (see Sanders 2000, 295–296).

v. 13

• MT-Psalms מִנֹּגַהּ נֶגְדּוֹ עָבָיו עָבְרוּ בָּרָד וְגַחֲלֵי־אֵשׁ whereas MT-Samuel reads מִנֹּגַהּ נֶגְדּוֹ בָּעֲרוּ גַּחֲלֵי־אֵֽשׁ׃. The difference concerns the text between מנגה נגדו and וגחלי אש. MT-Psalms has the consonants עביו עברו ברד whereas MT-Samuel simply has בערו. The internal and external evidence suggest that both Samuel and Psalms go back to a text which read something like מנגה נגדו עברו ברד וגחלי אש “Hail and burning coals passed through from the brightness before him.” Considering internal factors this verse most likely continues the theophanic description of God's presence begun in v. 12. There, darkness was said to be around him, and the picture was one of storm clouds. This verse depicts what is happening “in the storm cloud”, so to say. This automatically problematizes MT-Psalms, where עביו “clouds” are said to “pass by” (עברו), suggesting the departure of the clouds, rather than their presence for the theophany. Momentarily turning to the intrinsic evidence, it is easy to see how עביו could be a doublet caused by the graphically similar עברו, either as a dittography or, more likely, as a misreading (עביו ברד וגחלי אש) followed by a conflation of readings (עביו עברו ברד וגחלי אש). Thus the original text so far would be עברו ברד וגחלי אש. This reading finds external support and also explains the Samuel variant. External support is provided by the Lucianic Samuel text (ἐκ φέγγους ἀπέναντι αὐτοῦ διῆλθον χάλαζα καὶ ἄνθρακες πυρός), which shows signs of assimilation neither to MT-Samuel, LXXB-Samuel or LXX-Psalms and is most likely more or less the Old Greek. As for the MT-Samuel variant, ברד could have easily dropped out by haplography (עברו ∩ ברד), and עברו would have undergone metathesis (perhaps unconsciously) to בערו in light of the following גחלי אש, as well as the parallel in v. 9. God's appearance is often described as accompanied by brightness (e.g., Ezek 1:13; 10:4) as well as fire and hail simultaneously (Isa 30:30).

v. 14

• We omit the phrase בָּרָד וְגַֽחֲלֵי־אֵשׁ “hail and coals of fire”. The phrase is neither in MT-2 Samuel nor the LXX-Psalms, which suggests that it is a relatively late dittography of the same phrase in the previous verse.

v. 15

• MT-Psalms contains the reading וברקים רב whereas MT-Samuel has just ברק. We read the consonants ברקים. The Psalms text is supported by all the Psalms-text witnesses (including 11Q7). The Lucianic text of Samuel contains an obvious conflation: ἤστραψεν ἀστραπὴν ἐν χαλάζῃ “He sent forth lightening in?/with? hail.” Most likely one Hebrew manuscript somewhere early in the tradition on which the Antiochene text is based had ברד (assimilation to v. 13) and another had ברק. In favor of the Psalms text, McCarter (1984, 457), appeals to the rare by-form roots רבה/רבב “shoot” (רבה/רבב. “to become numerous” is intransitive), known from Aramaic and thought to exist in Hebrew. This interpretation has the advantage of easily explaining the Samuel text. In older scripts, the sequence waw, bet, resh, qof (וברק) looked nearly identical to yod, mem, resh, bet (ימרב), so that ים רב could have dropped out by haplography. However, supposing an occurrence of this root here is very unlikely. The root רבה “throw, shoot” is a secondary formation (perhaps a difference pronunciation) of the root רמה with the same meaning (cf. Gen 21:20 רֹבֶ֥ה קַשָּֽׁת and רֹ֣מֵה קֶ֗שֶׁת [Jer 4:29 cf. Ps 78:9]). The root רבב “to shoot, throw” would then be a by-form of this already secondary root רמה. The only supposed occurrence of this by-form is Gen 49:23 “which is better interpreted as ‘struggle, strive’” (Notarius 2017, 68). Thus, if רב here in Ps 18:15 were to mean “to shoot” it would have to be the only certain occurrence of a by-form of a secondary root. On the other hand God is said to send both his “arrows” (Ps 144:6) and his “lighting bolts” (Job 38:35), thus qualifying ישלח here in Ps 18:15 for elision in the b-line. This would then be a near text-book case of elision in Hebrew (see Miller 2003) and makes good sense in the context. Assuming, with 11Q7, that the original reading is וברקים, the addition of רב could easily be explained by dittography, since the sequence waw and bet looked identical to resh and bet in older scripts, as do resh and bet with yod and mem. The reading in 2 Samuel (ברק) would have then arisen through hapolography, perhaps due to the resemblance of the end of ברקים with the beginning of ויהמם. Admittedly, this requires more steps textually, thereby decreasing the probability. But, the occurrence of רבב “to shoot”, in our opinion, is even less probable.
• MT-Psalms reads חציו his arrows whereas MT-Samuel reads חצים “arrows”. We consider the former reading superior. Even though LXX-Psalms agrees with MT Samuel (βέλη), some daughter versions of the Psalms text as well as quotations from Augustine contain αυτου (Rhalfs 1931, 102), which could have easily fallen out due to haplography. The same is the case with the transmission of the Gallican Psalter, with many manuscripts exhibiting the additional suas. (Note that when Jerome translated the Psalms from Hebrew—which happened after his translation of Samuel—he did not assimilate the Psalms passage to the Samuel passage). Within the Hebrew tradition, it is more likely that an extra ם made its way into the tradition due to dittography with the sequence of צם of the fllowing word (ויפויצם). As far as internal considerations, the further determined “his arrows” (instead of indefinite “arrows”) make better sense in the context, since, in the context the theophany, they would have been understood as lightening.

v. 16

• In the MT of Psalm 18, the psalmist appears to be directly addressing YHWH, as expressed by the second person suffixes on מִגַּעֲרָתְךָ because of your rebuke and אַפֶּךָ your anger. But this is not the case in the Samuel text. The change applies to each instance, making it seem intentional. The 2nd-person reading is more difficult due to the abrupt change in addressee, making the 3rd-person reading suspect. Cross and Freedman (1953, 26) prefer the 2nd-person reading on metrical grounds. This feeds into the מן/ב difference. Cross and Freedmen prefer the bet instead of the mem before גערה “rebuke” citing that it is more archaic. Both are used with גְּעָרָה (see the use of bet in Isa 50:2; the use of min in Ps 76:7; 104:7 Job 26:11; Ps 80:17). The preposition min more naturally indicates cause (BHRG §39.14.3). When packaged as a passive and a form of address, this seems like the more natural reading, viz., it would be awkward to gloss the clause “The channels of water were revealed with your rebuke, Lord”!
• The noun “water channels” (אָפִיק) is frequently associated with “water” (מַיִם) (See Joel 1:20; 4:18; Ps 42:2; Song 5:12), but never with יָם “sea”. The Samuel text is thus probably a result of haplography due to the final yod of אֲפִיקֵי (vis., the scribe's eye skipped over the first mem). Note that both ק and ם look very similar to מ in some early scripts, so this could have added to the confusion. We consider appeals to enclitic mem dubious (see Fassberg 2020).
• The initial waw introduces an event that is sequential to the events described in vv. 14–15, cf. ESV “Then the channels of the sea were open...”

v. 17

v. 18

• Most modern translations translate עָז strong here simply as an adjective (e.g., ESV “from my powerful enemy”). This seems to contradict the requirement of the definiteness of the attributive, but there are cases where an attributive adjective is without the article (Gen 37:2; 43:13; Num 14:37; 1 Sam 2:23; Jer 2:21; Bekins forthcoming).

v. 19

• Ps 18:18 has here וַֽיְהִי־יְהוָה לְמִשְׁעָן לִי, whereas the Samuel text has only וַיְהִי יְהוָה מִשְׁעָן לִי, without the lamed. We prefer the latter, since the meaning of the former (“he has become...”) would imply that YHWH was, at one time, not the one in whom David trusted. The construction הָיָה + ל expresses inchoative aspect, viz., it “presents the subject as acquiring a state” (Wilson 2021, 462). V. 3, however, makes it clear that the Lord is the psalmist's strength and support. There is no indication that he was not one of these things at one time. In other words, the verse does not say “The Lord became my support” but rather “the Lord was my support.” Grammatically, יְהוָה is discourse-active, and so the הָיָה verb here is a copula. The מִשְׁעָן is modified by a prepositional phrase, again mirroring the possessive epithets in v. 3 (Cf. Jerome firmamentum meum “my support”; LXX ἀντιστήριγμά μου “my buttress” (NETS)). The lamed most likely arose either through scribal error (see Cross and Freedman 1953, 27) or an intentional change be a scribe who that that the meaning was to “become” here.

v. 20

v. 21-23

• MT-Psalms text reads וְחֻקֹּתָיו לֹא־אָסִיר מֶנִּי and I will not turn his decrees away from me, whereas in the Samuel text we get וְחֻקֹּתָיו לֹא־אָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה “and as for his statutes—I will not turn from them.” We prefer to maintain the MT-Psalms reading here. Of course the prepositional phrase and the אסר verb are contingent on one another. 5/6Ḥev1b supports מֶנִּי (Charlesworth et. al. 2000, 157). According to Cross et. al. (2005, 187), waw and yod were “virtually interchangeable” in the Herodian script. Thus, the waw in אסוּר could have been a mis-interpretation of yod. The ממנה reading was then assimilated to this interpretation or arose through another scribal error (Cross and Freedman posit conflation of מ [] [ה]נה; see Cross and Freedman 1953, 27). Finally, a parallel to the Psalms passage is found in Job 27:5 ESV “I will not put away my integrity from me” (לֹא־אָסִיר תֻּמָּתִי מִמֶּנִּי). In the Samuel text, the “statutes” (חקֹּתָיו) is topicalized. The singular suffix on מִמֶּנָּה does not agree with חֻקֹּתָיו. The Psalms reading is thus better.

v. 24

• There is no real difference in meaning between the forms וָאֱהִי/וָאֶשְׁתַּמֵּר and I have become/and I have kept myself in the Psalms text and the ones with final heh in the Samuel text since both are wayyiqtol forms. 5/6Ḥevb attests to the shorter forms (Charlesworth et. al. 2000, 158), and so that will be our preferred option.
• We maintain MT-Psalms' reading of עִמוֹ before (lit., “with”) him rather than MT-2 Samuel's reading לוֹ “to him”, since the meanings are more or less similar and largely a matter of style. This could be an example of a “synonymous reading” that reflects two different editions of the psalm, but these kinds of minor substitutions of synonyms are also common memory variants that arise during visual copying.

v. 25

• MT-Psalms has the reading כְּבֹר יָדַי according to the cleanliness of my hands whereas MT-Samuel has just כְּבֹרִי “according to my cleanliness.” There are a number of reasons to prefer the former reading, mainly because “cleanliness” (בֹּר) is always in a bound phrase with another word. The reading כְבֹר יָדַי has much support. The phrase is found in 5/6Ḥev1b and is contained in the LXX of both Samuel and Psalms (κατὰ τὴν καθαριότητα τῶν χειρῶν μου). On the one hand, the text of Psalms could be an assimilation to v. 21, where the same phrase is found. On the other, the noun “cleanliness” (בֹּר), in the few times it occurs, is always in a bound phrase with יַד “hand” or כַּף “palm” ( Ps 18:21, 25; Job 22:30)—it is never determined by just a suffix (Barthélemy 2005, 95). A scribe's eye could have skipped over the dalet and yod, leaving only the first yod which was then interpreted as the first-person suffix. Cross and Freedman (1953, 28) delete v. 25 on grounds that it is a doublet, simply repetition of v. 21. But this does not explain the וַיָּֽשֶׁב. Note also that daleth is very similar to yod in early hands, and so יָדַי would have looked like a cluster of three very similar letters, which could make it easier to misread.
• Note that the Samuel text has the feminine word צִדְקָה (in כְּצִדְקָתִי) “righteousness” whereas the Psalms text has the masculine word צֶדֶק (in כְצִדְקִי) righteousness. “The two forms do not differ in meaning, as far as we can prove” (TWOT: 752). Since this is the second occurrence of this difference (cf. v. 21), it is probably a matter of style.

v. 26

• MT-Psalms has the word גֶּבֶר “man” whereas MT-Samuel has the word גִּבּוֹר “hero.” Cross and Freedman (1953, 28) simply delete this word. The difference most likely comes down to one of style and so we maintain both readings, that is, neither the text of MT-Samuel nor MT-Psalms should be changed in any way. Some (Cross and Freedman 1953; McCarter 1984) think that the גבר element is secondary, having arisen through a long and complicated process. Their complex reconstructions are based on readings that would suppose multiple various Hebrew Vorlagen. For example, the Syriac preserves a reading ܥܡ ܬܡܝܡܐ݂ ܬܬܡ = עם תמים תתמם (according to Cross et. al. [2005, 187] this a “superior” reading). It is also possible to explain the Syriac text by translation technique. Peshitta-Psalms' translation technique is very free (Carbajosa 2020) and would likely have left out the גבר–element since this element breaks the pattern of the surrounding clauses (עם + attribute + verb). LXX Psalm's ἀθῴου corresponds to MT Psalms' תמים; and ἀθῷος only ever translates נָקִי (see e.g., Gen 24:31; Exod 21:28; 23:7; Num 32:33, etc) and therefore may reflect a text that began with עם נקי. The Lucianic text contains a sequence μετὰ ἀθῴου ἀθῷος ἔσῃ as well as μετὰ ἐλεήμονος ἔλεον ποιήσεις. At least in the LXX ἐλεήμονος translates mostly חַנּוּן (Exod 22:27; 34:6; 2 Chr 30:9 etc.) and sometimes חֶסֶד (Prov 11:17; 20:6) and even חָסִיד once (Jer 3:12), pointing possibly to yet another cola (in addition to עם נקי תתנקי) (note that Lucian also has LXX's μετὰ ὁσίου ὁσιωθήσῃ = עם חסיד תתחסד). If indeed these do reflect Hebrew Vorlagen it is likely that “all of these cola belong to an oral repertoire of formulae available to the psalmist” (Cross et al 2005, 187). Given that the variants in the versions may either be a result of translation technique or simply reflect the fact that there existed an oral repertoire from which one could draw, it is probably best to maintain both texts as they are. The variation of גִבּוֹר vs. גֶּבֶר is probably the result of oral variation; both are very close in meaning. גִּבּוֹר may carry a slightly more pronounced connotation of power (see TWOT: 148–149). Simply put, the editor of Samuel knew the poem with גִבּוֹר, whereas the editor of Psalms knew the poem with גֶּבֶר.

v. 27

• The text of Psalms (first alternative) has the form תִּתְפַּתָּל you act wittily whereas the text of Samuel (second alternative) has the form תִּתַּפָּל. It is not clear what this word would mean. On the basis of (1) the external evidence,(2) a fitting parallel member for the עִקֵּשׁ verb, (3) the obscure meaning of the root תפל, and (4) a likely process by which תתפל could have arisen (haplography), we prefer the text of the Psalm as it stands—תִּתְפַּתָּֽל. All of the external witnesses support a verb with the meaning to “twist” in both passages, suggesting a verb from the root פתל “twist”. Such a meaning would be a fitting correlate of עִקֵּשׁ “crooked” (so Keil and Delitzsch 1996, 163). On the other hand, it is not clear what a verb from the root תפל would mean; most lexica (e.g., DCH, HALOT) gloss as “to speak foolishly”, based on Psalm 141:5, where it is offered as an emendation in place of תְפִלָּתִי. Scholars of the text of Samuel (see e.g., Cross et al 2005, 187; McCarter 1984, 458–9) prefer the reading of the Psalms. The consonantal text of Samuel could have easily arisen as a result of haplography.
• The text of Samuel reads תִּתָּבר (it is not clear what this word would mean) whereas the Psalms text reads תִּתְבָּרָר You act with purity . The ancient versions translate both passages the same. The difference seems to be merely one of spelling. MT-Psalms spelling is preferable (Vulgate electus eris “you will be the same”; LXX ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ “you will be elect”; Pesh-Samuel ܬܗܘܐ ܓܒ݂ܐ. “you will be pure” (i.e., “to be” + adjective) but Peshitta-Psalms ܬܬ݂ܓܒܐ “you will be pure, chosen” with virtually the same meaning). The presence of the infixed -t in the form in Samuel suggest that this is simply either an allomorph of the hithpael with geminate verbs, or a scribal error. In either case, the Psalms spelling is preferable.
• We analyze the fronted phrase and with a twisted person (וְעִם־עִקֵּשׁ) as a contrastive topic, since the comment on the topic is of a different nature than of the previous topics. One may therefore translate the waw as “but”, as, for example, the NIV does, “but to the devious...”.

v. 28-30

• The Psalms text begins with the consonants כי אתה עם (that is, כִּי־אַתָּה עַם lit., “for you a people”) whereas the Samuel text begins with ואת עם (that is, וְאֶת־עַם lit., “and a people”). We prefer the consonants ואת, vocalized as וְאַתַּ. This reading has much external support and explains how the reading with כִּי “for” could have arisen. For the sake of readability, we will write this out fully as אַתָּה (cf. the ketiv את and qere אַתָּה in 1 Sam 24:19; Ps 6:4; Job 1:10; Eccl 7:22; Neh 9:6). All the ancient versions of the Psalms text support this reading. Additionally, this reading is possibly present in 5/6Ḥev1b (see Charlesworth et. al. 2000, 158) and, according to Cross et. al. (2005, 188) “Considerations of space require the longer reading כי אתה in 4Q51.” LXX-B of Samuel, the Vulgate and the Targum supports the MT Samuel text , whereas Lucianic/Antiochene text, the Peshitta, many minuscules and daughter versions of the LXX read ὅτι σὺ. Internal considerations make the direct object marker (אֶת) suspicious. This would be the only time in the song it is used (aside from v. 20, where it is used to instantiate a personal pronoun; but cf. Ps 18:20, which does not use it). On the other hand, if the first word was originally כִּי, it is difficult to explain how a waw would have arisen through scribal error, whereas an addition of כִּי could easily be explained due to the graphic similarity of the final three letters of vv. 27 and 28 (note the graphic similarity of פתל and פיל). In other words, after copying תתפתל in v. 27, a scribe's eye would have skipped over to the כִּי of v. 29, thinking that the תשפיל of v. 28 was the תתפתל of v. 27 just copied. Thus the original reading was most likely ואת, where the את was vocalized attā “you” instead of ēt. In one tradition, the orthography was more fully spelled out, whereas in another, ita remained defective and was reinterpreted as the object marker. This also makes better sense of the discourse, since the contents of v. 28 seem more like an addition to what precedes, rather than the logical grounds.
• Psalms has וְעֵינַיִם רָמוֹת תַּשְׁפִּיל׃ and you bring down eyes that look down on others, whereas the Samuel text has וְעֵינֶיךָ עַל־רָמִים תַּשְׁפִּיל “and your eyes will lower upon the proud(?).” The Psalms text is preferable on external as well as semantic grounds. The meaning of the Samuel text is unclear (what does it mean for God's eyes to “lower” upon the proud). Cross and Freedman argue that the Samuel text is “corrupt” (Cross and Freedman 1953, 28). The Psalms text has wide external support, among which are 5/6Ḥev1b (ועינ[י]ם֯ רמות תשפיל) and 11Q8 (רמות תשפיל). Internally, the idea of proud eyes being brought low is also an attested biblical idiom (Isa 13:11; 25:11). Finally, the Psalms reading maintains a symmetrical parallelism—each line consists of the object noun phrase, followed by a 2nd person verb.
• MT-Psalms contains the verb תאיר (that is, תָּאִיר you light) between “you” (אַתָּה) and “my lamp” (נֵרִי) (viz., the order is אתה תאיר נרי). MT-Samuel does not contain this verb, but instead has אתה נרי (that is “you are my lamp” [אַתָּה נֵירִי]). An argument could be made that a longer reading is suitable in in the Samuel text as reflected in 4Q51. The text of Psalms (תאיר) has full external support from all the versions as well as from 5/6Ḥev1b. MT-Samuel, which lacks this verb, has external support from LXX (Vaticanus), the Vulgate and the Targum. The Lucianic text (φωτιεῖς) and the daughter versions (Armenian reflects ἀναλάμψεις; all Georgian mss შენ აღმინთო სანთელი ჩემი) reflect a verb, as in the reading of MT-Psalms. According to Cross et. al. (2005, 188), the reading תאיר is required to “fill out the space” of 4Q51; the Qumran biblical texts are generally thought to be free of kaige influence (Kauhanen and de silva Pinto 2020, 15). This suggests that LXX (Vaticanus) has undergone a kaige revision, and L as well as the daughter versions preserve a superior reading. The verb תאיר could easily have dropped out due to haplography because of the similarity of the letter sequence in אתה תאיר נירי. Assuming this is the case the reading of MT-Psalms תאיר is to be preferred on both internal and external evidence.
• In MT-Psalms, the word after יהוה is אֱלֹהַי my God. In MT-Samuel, it is ויהיה (with a conjunction waw) “and YHWH”. This difference is most likely one of style, and so we prefer to maintain both texts as they stand. All the ancient versions of the Psalms text support “my God” (אלהי) here (e.g., LXXB-Psalms ὁ θεός μου; Vulgate Deus meus). Additionally, there is an alef after the consonants הוה in 5/6Ḥev1b, supporting the reading אלהי. The Lucianic text as well as a number of minuscules and codex Alexandrinus reads a name for God followed by μου, clearly reflecting אלהי (or perhaps even אדני). Cross et. al. (2005, 188) allow the Greek evidence to confirm the originality of אלהי but fail to provide an explanation as to how ויהוה arose. One could evoke dittography to explain the יהוה, but this still would not explain the addition of the waw. Recall that in v. 3, a more personal form of address was used in MT-Psalms. Here the Psalms text addresses God again as “my God”, whereas in the Samuel text it is simply YHWH. Thus, this is more likely a difference in style (Young 2007, 58).
• Verse 29. With the major greek witnesses and 5/6ḤevPsalms (see Charlesworth et al. 2000, 157), we group YHWH (יְהוָה) with what precedes it, contrary to the Masoretic accents. Note also that this conforms structurally to the Samuel version, where a divine name appears in both lines (Sanders 2000, 302).
• We maintain MT-Psalms and Samuel's גְּדוּד wall here. The Lucianic text of Samuel translates MT גדוד as πεφραγμένος “enclosed”, suggesting that the translator perhaps read a word from the root גדר “to enclose”. The graphic confusion between resh and dalet is evident in e.g., 1 Sam 30:8 where גְּדוּד is transcribed by the LXX as γεδδουρ. Nevertheless, the reading of an “enclosed” structure (i.e., a fence) seems like assimilation to the following stich, which also makes reference to a physical structure (Barthélemy 2005, 100). Additionally, the spelling גד(ו)ד has strong support since it is attested in both the Psalms and Samuel text (as opposed to e.g., אסור vs אסיר in v. 23 above).
• The form אר(וּ)ץ “I will run” creates a difficulty in the a-line; what does it mean to “run an army”? We have chosen to revocalize to אָרִץ “I will rout”. Barthélemy (2005, 100) retains the vocalization, claiming that רוץ can also mean “to break” on the basis of Isa 42:4 (ESV “He will not grow faint or be discouraged” [לֹא יִכְהֶה וְלֹא יָרוּץ]) and Eccl 12:6 (ESV “and the golden bowl is broken” [וְתָרֻץ גֻּלַּת הַזָּהָב]). However, this interpretation does not work; in both instances, the verb is intransitive/reflexive. Much more likely is that the verb should be vocalized as אָרִץ “I will route” (yielding, “I will route an army”; cf. 1 Sam 30). The form ארוץ in the Samuel text could easily be explained as a graphic confusion between yod and waw (cf. the qere and ketiv in Jer 50:44; Gordis 1971, 186).

v. 31-33

• The Psalms text uses זוּלָתִי besides in the b-line whereas the Samuel text uses מִבַּלְעֲדֵי “besides”, but this is most likely a stylistic difference. This pair of alternatives (מבלעדי vs זולתי) conforms to a stylistic pattern seen throughout the comparison of the Psalms and Samuel versions of this psalm—the Psalm version prefers variation whereas the Samuel version prefers repetition (see Young 2005). In the a-line of both, מבלעדי is used; Samuel repeats this preposition whereas the Psalm version uses a synonymous variant.
• The a-line of the Psalms text has אֱלוֹהַּ God whereas the a-line of the Samuel text has אֵל “God”. This also is simply a matter of style. The difference between אלוה in the Psalm text and the אל in the Samuel text is also one of style. This same correspondence was seen in Ps 18:3 // 2 Sam 22:2, but the other way around (viz., אלוה in the Samuel text vs. אל in the Psalms text). According to Young (2005, 58), “Both texts use variations of the divine name freely.”
• The preposition מִבַּלְעֲדֵי literally means “from besides him”, that is, it means besides from a third-party vantage point (see footnote). The preposition זוּלָתִי besides is closely related in meaning and probably once meant something like “which is not him”. מִבַּלְעדֵי is a compound preposition consisting of the preposition מִן “from” plus the element בַּלְעַדֵי, itself evidently made up of the negator בַּל plus the simple preposition עַדֵי “until”. Componentially, this would yield “not until” >> “besides”, and this is indeed the logical relation found among its usages (Gen 14:24; 41:44; Isa 45.6). Presumably, the מִן contributes a locative relation “from” to the meaning, but HALOT considers it “pleonastic” (viz., superfluous). The logical relation “from” contributed by the מִן, however, shifts the vantage point to the trajector (the words before the preposition). Most likely this is a conventional implicature (viz., present in the semantics of the sentence, but not truth-conditional)—at least in this case—to draw attention to the state of affairs in which there is no other God beside YHWH. The preposition זוּלָתִי most likely derived from the West Semitic relative *ḏū, the negator *lā, and the oblique personal pronoun ending that survives in many Semitic languages -tī (e.g., Akkadian šuāti “(of) him”, Ge'ez ye'eti (her), Phonecian h'tV “it/him”). In West Semitic this would have yielded something like *ḏū lā hu'ātī “which is not him/it” >> “without/except him/it”. The first part of the pronoun would have then been clipped, yielding *dū-lā-ti, from which it is not difficult to see the development into זוּלָתִי (reconstruction from Huehnergard and Wilson-Wright 2014). The Samuel passage uses another מִבַּלְעֲדֵי; the Psalms version prefers variety over repetition, which is why another preposition was chosen in the first place.
• MT-Samuel reads מָעוּזִּי “my strength” where MT-Psalms reads הַמְאַזְּרֵנִי who arms me We prefer MT-Psalms's reading. Both the difficult syntax that מַעוּזִי creates in MT-Samuel and the external evidence cast doubt on this reading. 4Q51, the Lucianic text of Samuel and the Vulgate of Samuel all reflect מְאַזּרֵנִי (as in MT-Psalms). (Note that there is no indication that the Lucianic text of Samuel is conforming to the LXX of Psalms; see select readings below). Additionally, the reading האל מעוזי חיל is “awkward” (Cross et. al. 2005, 181). Indeed it is not clear what this passage means. The LXX-B text of Samuel clearly tries to assimilate to the Hebrew, but must change the syntax in order to make sense of the passage. It reads מעוזי as a verb (κραταιῶν). Perhaps the translator was reading מעיז (viz., a hiphil from the verb עוז). This is unlikely, given that the hiphil of עוז means to “bring something into safety” (see Isa 10:31; Jer 4:6; 6:1), not to “strengthen”. The reading מעוזי may be explained as a corruption of מאזרני “Waw, resh and zayin are easily confused in the Jewish Script of the third century B.C.E” (Cross et. al. 2005, 182). Also, later weakening of laryngeals and pharyngeals may explain the alef-'ayin interchange; see the many examples of this in the great Isaiah scroll (Kutscher 1974, 506–507).
• MT-Psalms has the definite article preceding the element mentioned in the previous point, whereas MT-Samuel does not. There is good external evidence for the article. 5/6Ḥev1b (Psalms) has the article before מאזרני whereas 4Q51 does not. The he of the Psalms text is also clearly supported by the Secunda (αμμαα̣ζερήνι) Nevertheless, all the ancient versions of Samuel translate מאזרני as the predicate of a relative clause. Participial relative clauses may be marked by ה or unmarked (see examples of both in Holmstedt 2016, 157n.31). Thus, no matter which text one reads here, there is little if any difference in meaning. The two versions alternate in their preferences for waws in many places (see Young 2007, 64) and so this may be another instantiation of a preference for syndetic vs. asyndetic strategies, as any explanation via scribal error would be forced.
• The first word of v. 33b in MT-Samuel reads ויתר (vocalized וַיַּתֵּר “?”) whereas it reads ויתן (vocalized וַיִּתֵּן and makes) in MT-Psalms. We maintain the reading in Psalms. The form ויתר is vocalized in MT-Samuel as if it were a hiphil form of the root נתר “to leap” (Hab 3:6; cf. in other stems Job 37:1 and Lev 11:21). This reading, however, does not seem to have any external support. LXX-L Samuel clearly reflects נתן ( διδοὺς), as does Coislinianus, Basiliano-Vaticanus and a number of minuscules (εθετο). LXX-B Samuel translates with ἐκτινάσσω “to shake out”, is normally used for the root נער “to shake off” (Exod 14:27; Jdg 16:20; Esd B 15:13; Job 38:13; Ps 108:23; 135:15; Isa 52:2). Thus, in addition to being a very difficult text, this reading does not seem to have wide external support. McCarter (1984, 459) avoids emendation of 2 Samuel by reading a verb תאר “to trace(?)” (see Isa 44:13) that was written defectively, and translates “to map out (a path)”. While not requiring any emendation, this idiom would indeed be singular in regards to “way”-related metaphors, not just in Biblical Hebrew, but in Post-Biblical Hebrew as well. Although ויתן appears to be a lectio facilior, it has good external support and it is easy to explain ויתר as a corruption—resh and nun looked similar in earlier Hebrew scripts.

v. 34

v. 35

• On the text and the meaning of MT-Psalms' וְֽנִחֲתָה “and it descends(?)” (in our CBC And he strengthens [וְֽנִחַת]) see our exegetical issue.

v. 36

• MT-Psalms has וְֽעַנְוַתְךָ “and your humility” while MT-Sam has וַעֲנֹתְךָ “and your answering”. Both are derived from the two putative homophones ענה where one means “to answer” and the other means “to be bowed down, afflicted”. With the text of Samuel attested in 4Q51, we read your help (עֶזְרָתְךָ). All the ancient versions reflect a meaning associated with one of the putative roots ענה. Under the assumption that the intended meaning of ענה is “to answer”, Barthélemy (2005, 107) argues that both readings should be maintained since YHWH's “saving” (root ישע) and “answering” are conceptually close throughout scripture (cf. v. 42; Ps 60:7; 118:21) and are in parallel lines here in v. 36. The connection is that YHWH's answering the psalmist is a saving act. But this conceptual connection is not so transparent in the context—equating God's “answering” to a shield of salvation (מָגֵן יִשְׁעֶךָ) is forced. God's “humility” could be seen as making the psalmist “great” under an ironic interpretation, but it is not clear what God's “humility” would even refer to. 4Q51 contains the reading עזרתך “your help”. Although this reading is certainly the lectio facilicior, it makes perfect sense in the context. To use Barthélemy's line of argumentation, YHWH's “saving” and “help” are also conceptually close throughout the Psalms (Ps 38:23; 60:13;79:9; 108:13; 109:26). It is also easy to explain how the reading ענות could have arisen, since “zayin-reš, particularly in the script of the third century BCE is easily confused with nun-waw” (Cross et. al. 2005, 183). In MT-Samuel, this was simply spelled defectively, whereas in MT-Psalms it was not.
• MT-Psalms has the extra clause and your right hand supports me (וִֽימִינְךָ תִסְעָדֵנִי) whereas MT-Samuel does not. It is well-supported by other ancient versions. This and other considerations lead us to maintain it. The extra clause is supported by all the ancient versions of the Psalms text. LXX-B Samuel does not witness to this clause, but LXX-L Samuel does, albeit in a different order. The order of the clauses in LXX-Psalms matches that of MT-Psalms (καὶ ἔδωκάς μοι ὑπερασπισμὸν σωτηρίας μου, καὶ ἡ δεξιά σου ἀντελάβετό μου, καὶ ἡ παιδεία σου ἀνώρθωσέν με εἰς τέλος, καὶ ἡ παιδεία σου αὐτή με διδάξει; on the extra final clause, see Rahlfs 1931, 104). In LXX-L Samuel the equivalent of וימינך תסעדני seems one line too late (καί έδωκάς μοι όπλον σωτηρίας μου, καί ταπεινώσεις έπλήθυνάν μοι· καί ή δεξιά σου άντελάβετό μου, καί ή παιδεία σου άνώρθωσέ με.) Note, however, that whereas LXX-Psalms uses the same word twice for ענות (παιδεία), LXX-L Samuel uses ταπεινώσεις “humiliation”, which more closely approximates the vocalization of MT-Psalms. Thus, originally, the Antiochene-Lucianic text must have just read καί έδωκάς μοι όπλον σωτηρίας μου, καί ή δεξιά σου άντελάβετό μου, καί ή παιδεία σου άνώρθωσέ με. At some point in the transmission of this text the line καί ταπεινώσεις έπλήθυνάν μοι was added as a “revisional approximation toward M” (Ulrich 1978, 140). In any case, the line καί ή δεξιά σου άντελάβετό μου seems to represent the OG of Samuel. The Hebrew phrase וִֽימִינְךָ תִסְעָדֵנִי most likely dropped out due to haplography.

v. 37

• Note that the Samuel text has the form תַּחְתֵּנִי “under me,” with an extra nun as opposed to the simple nominal-type suffix of תַחְתָּי underneath me. Hardy suggests hat the nun is a vestige of an expansion particle found on prepositions, as one finds in Ugaritic functions words such as ʿmn “with”; hln “here” and apn “then” (Hardy 2022, 110). In Biblical Hebrew, we also find this nun on the form בַּעֲדֵֽנִי (Ps 139:11). In this case, MT-Psalms would represent a text with an updated form.

v. 38

• The Psalms text reads וְאַשִּׂיגֵם and I overtook them whereas the Samuel text reads וָאַשְׁמִידֵם “and I will destroy them”. Since both variants are fully supported externally, make good sense in the context, and have a synonymous relationship characteristic of other word-pairs in the comparison of the two versions, it seems best to maintain both texts as they are. Both options are fully supported externally within their respective traditions (with the exception of the Syriac of 2 Sam, which reads ܘܐܕܪܟ “I will tread upon”, perhaps influenced by Exodus 15:6). Both also make good sense in context . To “pursue” (רדף) and “overtake” (השיג) commonly form a verbal hendiadys (see Gen 44:4; Exod 14:9; 15:9; Deut 28:45; Josh 2:5; 1 Sam 30:8; Ps 7:6; Lam 1:3) whose meaning connotes defeat, making it a fitting parallel to the כלה verb. On the other hand השמיד “to destroy” provides a good parallel to כלה and equally provides a good parallel (Cross et. al. 2005, 184). Although both verbs contain similar letters, there seems to be no reason to suppose that one is a corruption of the other. Rather, these are simply synonymous verbs (cf. אֲשַׁוֵּעַ Ps 18:7 vs. אֶקְרָא II Sam 22:7; מְפַלְּטִי Ps 18:49 vs. מוֹצִיאִי II Sam 22:49).

v. 39

• For cases of יכל being complemented by the bare infinitive (without lamed) see Gen 24:50; 37:4; 44:1; Exod 18:18, 23; Num 22:37, 38; Deut 1:9; 14:24; Isa 46:2; 47:11, 12; Ps 36:13; 78:20; Prov 30:21; Lam 1:14. Syntactically the bare infinitive may either serve as the complement of the verb or as an adverbial modifier (they will have no ability with respect to standing up). Taking it as a complement is preferable due to the scope of negation. On the adverbial reading, the scope is limited קוּם, which would strongly implicate that they are able to do something else (viz., they cannot stand, but they can do other stuff). The point the psalmist is trying to express, however, is that the enemies will completely incapacitated. The complement reading lends itself better to all elements being within the scope of negation.
• At the beginning of the verse the Samuel version has וָאֲכַלֵּם, whereas the Psalms version does not. Since וָאֲכַלֵּם represents a conflation based on the previous word in MT 2 Sam 22:38 (כַּלּוֹתָם), it is most likely that the original hymn only had one כלה verb. We therefore prefer the MT of Psalms as it stands (which has the כלה-verb at the end of v. 38). The reading of the Psalms version is better supported by the external evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls of both the Psalms version (4Q85, 5/6Ḥev1b) and the Samuel version (4Q51) lack the extra ואכלם. The same is the case for the Septuagint. The Lucianic text supports the Samuel reading, but the additional element (i.e. ואכלם) is marked with an asterisk in one manuscript (see Marcos and Saiz 1989, 159). According to McCarter (1984, 460), the reading in the Samuel version is a result of a conflation of variants. The LXX of 2 Sam 22:38 ( ἕως συντελέσω αὐτούς) reflects עד אכלם instead of עַד־כַּלּוֹתָֽם. This was most likely a stylistic variant. At some point during the transmission of Samuel, both variants made their way into the text—resulting in the current MT of Samuel.

v. 40

• The Samuel text here has the form תזרני (vocalized וַתַּזְרֵנִי) whereas the Psalms text has תאזרני (that is, and you armed me [וַתְּאַזְּרֵנִי]). Most agree, however, that the form in the Samuel text is simply an orthographic variant, perhaps reflecting a spoken form where the alef would have been quiescent (see Cross et. al. 2005, 184; McCarter 1984, 460). This is confirmed in 4Q51, which clearly has the consonants תאזר, where the alef is visible.

v. 41

• The Samuel text has the consonants תתה in place of the verb you have made (נָתַתָּה), vocalized by the MT as תַּתָּה. The Samuel vocalization (תַּתָּה) appears to be some kind of 2nd person yiqtol form, for which we would expect תִּתֶּן. The versions unanimously interpret the verb as past-tense in both cases. And given that the form in MT Samuel is anomalous, it is “evidently an error, the initial nun being lost by an unexplained parablepsis” (Cross et. al. 2005, 189) (that is, a scribe's eye skipped over the nun somehow).

v. 42

• The MT of Psalms has the verb they cry out for help (יְשַׁוְּעוּ) from the root שוע, whereas the MT of Samuel has the verb יִשְׁעוּ from שעה “to look”. We prefer the former. All of the ancient versions unequivocally use a verb meaning “to cry out” or “to inquire, beg” (so בעי in the Targum). Internally, “the parallel verb of the bicolon (ענה) sometimes accompanies שוע but never שעה” (Cross et. al. 2005, 189). The middle vav could have easily fallen out via haplography motivated by the following waws as well as the previous yod (which looks like waw in many manuscripts). In the context the meaning “call out” also makes good sense. The enemies are defeated and, due to this defeat, they cry out to God.
• MT-Psalms introduces the second stich with the preposition “upon” (עַל) whereas MT-Samuel introduces it with to (אֶל). We have preferred the latter. The reading אל is clearly preferable here (pace Young 2005). The verb שוע “to call out” is complemented by אל in every one of its other occurrences (Ps 22:25; 28:2; 30:3; 31:23; 88:14; Job 30:20; 38:41). This preposition is supported by 4Q51 as well as the Lucianic text of Samuel, which read these consonants as the word “God” (Θεός Κύριος). The על in MT-Psalms as well as 5/6Ḥevb may be explained either as dittography due to the end of the previous word (מושיע), or, more likely, due to the falling together of the pronunciation of אל and על on account of the weakening of the pharyngeals (Cross et. al. 2005, 184). (Or, it could even be a combination of the previous two suggestions. In the “mind's ear” of the scribe, the phonological features of the final ayin of מושיע could have bled over into the אל, i.e., /moʃiːʕ ʔɛl/ could have been “heard” as [moʃiːæʕal]).

v. 43

• The final verb in the MT Psalms text is I will empty them out (אֲרִיקֵם). In the MT Samuel text, there are two verbs “I will crush them; I will beat them” (אֲדִקֵּם אֶרְקָעֵם). We prefer only I beat them (אֶרְקעֵם) as the last verb. It is much easier to presuppose the loss of an 'ayin, rather than its addition. Let us therefore begin by assuming both base texts had ארקעם. The 'ayin fell out, most likely because it was pronounced weakly. This left a difficult reading ארקם (it does not make sense that he crushes them like dust and “pours them out” like mud). Since resh and dalet look very similar, it would have been very natural to read אדקם “I crush them”; indeed, we see signs of this variant in the tradition of the Psalms text (VL–Psalms delebo “I will destroy”; LXX-Psalms λεανῶ “to smooth, grind into a mortar”) as well as the LXX-Samuel (cf. LXX-Samuel ἐλέπτυνα “I thresh”, and its daughter traditions Armenian reflects comminuam “pulverise”; Georgian დავთრგუნე “I suppress”). There remained a tradition, however, which still had only ארקעם (so 4Q51). Sometime late in the tradition (after 4Q51 and the B-text of LXX Samuel) of MT-Samuel, the reading אדִקם “I will crush them” became conflated with ארקעם, resulting in a doublet. In terms of internal evidence, note that טִיט refers to “mud” or “clay”, and it makes much more sense to “flatten” or “stomp on” (So the Aramaic versions בעטית “I kicked”; Peshitta ܐ݁ܕܘܫ “I trample”; cf. Isa 41:25; 57:20; Jer 38:6; Mic 7:10; Nah 3:14; Zech 9:3; 10:5; Ps 40:3; 69:15; Job 41:22) clay than it does to “pulverize” it in the same way that one pulverizes something into dust, especially if that mud is on a road.
• In the Psalms text, the noun dust (עָפָר) is modified by the phrase “upon the face of the wind” (עַל־פְּנֵי־רוּחַ) whereas in the Samuel text it is in construct with אָ֑רֶץ “earth”. A third variant will be considered, that of 4Q51, in which [עפר] “dust” is in construct with פני ארח lit., “face of a path”. We prefer this last reading. Pulverizing something like “dust on the wind” (עָפָר עַל־פְּנֵי־רוּחַ) does not make much sense. Interestingly, the Targum of Psalms harmonizes this portion to the text of Samuel (גרגישׁתא דארעא “clay of the earth”). The MT of Samuel reads the phrase עפר ארץ “dust of the earth”, whereas the Qumran scroll of Samuel 4Q51 the phrase עפר על] פני ארח] lit., “[dust upon the] face of the path” >> “[dust] upon the path”. Out of the two readings (עפר ארץ and עפר על פני ארח) the latter represents the more unusual wording  (cf. the phrase עפר הארץ in e.g., Gen 13:16; 28:14, etc), thus it is natural that a scribe, consciously or unconsciously, would have assimilated עפר על פני ארח to עפר ארץ. Additionally, dust upon a “path” (ארח) forms a nice parallel with the mud on the “streets” (חוּצוֹת) in the next line. These data suggest the following development. 4Q51 preserves the original reading of both versions, namely עפר על] פני ארח] “[dust upon] the face of the path”. The variation between רוח, ארח and ארץ are a result of graphic confusion: “'alep-reš or res-ḥet recur in all three variants” (Cross et. al. 2005, 184), that is, ארח is both attested and explains the other two variants. על פני could have easily dropped out in Samuel by haplography due to the repetition of 'ayin, pe and resh. It could also have been influenced by the idiom עפר ארץ noted above. These two explanations may be mutually supportive.

v. 44

• MT-Psalms has the form עָם “people” in the first line, whereas MT-Samuel has the form עַמִּי “my people”. The evidence, however, seems to point to the reading עַמִּים peoples. The form in MT-Samuel (עַמִּי) has little strong external support, with the notable exception of two majuscules (Coislianus [7th century] and Basiliano-Vaticanus [8th century]) and multiple minuscules). The form עמי could either have come about by scribal error (see below) or by “‘actualization’ towards the events of David's life (McCarter 1984, 461). In any case, it is not to be preferred. (Note that Barthélemy [2005, 113] argues that the Samuel reading עמי is an assimilation to the previous word]) Important witnesses both within the MT-Psalms tradition and MT-Samuel reflect the variants עם “people” and עמים “peoples” (see select list of witnesses below). With few exceptions (see Isa 13:4; Ezek 36:3), whenever גוי “nation” and עם “people” are parallel, they match in number. Thus, with Cross et. al. (2005, 189) עמים “peoples” was probably the original reading. In MT-Psalms the sequence of letters ים would have fallen out due to haplography; in older scripts ע and י looked almost identical, so that, in effect, the word עמים in older scripts looked like an exact repetition of a pair of graphemes.
• MT-Psalms has the form תְּשִׂימֵנִי you will make me in the second line whereas MT-Samuel has תִּשְׁמְרֵנִי “you will keep me”. We maintain MT-Psalms's text here. The Lucianic text of Samuel preserves the reading ἔθου με “you set me” instead of the Majority text's/B-text of Samuel's φυλάξεις “you will keep”. Lucian's text also differs from the LXX-Psalm's translation of תשימני, καταστήσεις “you will place in charge”, showing that it did not assimilate to that text. These facts suggest that OG-Samuel read a text here much like MT-Psalms. The preposition לְ expresses appointment to an office much more naturally with the verb שׂים than the verb שׁמר (see examples with ראשׁ in Jer 13:21; 1 Chr 26:10) (see Barthélemy 2005, 116). Additionally resh and yod (i.e., the one letter difference between תשימני and תשמרני) are “easily confused in the Jewish Script of the third century BCE” (Cross et. al. 2005, 189).

v. 45

v. 46

v. 47-48

• Some versions reflect ברוך אלהי (e.g., Psalms-LXX, Ge'ez, Vul; 2 Sam-Vul) whereas the MT of both the Psalms text and the Samuel text (as well as other ancient versions) reflect ברוך צורי (that is, my rock is blessed [וּבָרוּךְ צוּרִי]). We maintain the reading with צוּר “rock” since translating this word as “God” seems largely a matter of translation technique. The LXX of Deuteronomy 32 has this same substitution (viz., translating צוּר “rock” with θέος “God”). According to Weavers (1995, 510) , “Presumably the term was used as a poetic name for God to designate the deity as the one who was solid, firm, unmovable, but the translator consistently avoided a direct translation, thereby precluding any possible misunderstanding of the metaphor.”
• The MT of Samuel has an additional “rock” (צוּר) in the second line, whereas it is absent in Psalms. The external evidence favors the Psalm reading over the Samuel reading. Admittedly, it is difficult to see how the צור reading came about (perhaps dittography). The internal evidence is not insignificant, even though perhaps somewhat inconclusive. We therefore consider the Psalm reading superior. Both צוּר יֶשַׁע/יְשׁוּעָה (Deut 32:15; Ps 89:27; 95:1) and אלהֵי יֶשַׁע/יְשׁוּעָה (e.g., Isa 17:10; Mic 7:7; Hab 3:18; Ps 24:4, 5; 27:9) have attested usage throughout Scripture. The Samuel text seems suspect, however, since צוּר is repeated in very close succession. Additionally, the meaning of “The God of the rock of my salvation” is not entirely clear. Lucian, along with the majority of manuscripts other than the B-text, reflect an omission of the second צוּר (see Brooke and McLean 1906, 190). Note also that the B-text (viz., the text reflected in Vaticanus), is more isomorphic—it has the abstract noun σωτηρία “salvation” (=יֶשַׁע “salvation”) whereas Lucian and the majority of Greek MSS have the agent noun σωτήρ “rescuer”, suggesting that the B-text is a kaige reading.
• The first word of the b-line in the Psalms text is וידבר (that is, “and subdues” [וַיַּדְבֵּר]) whereas the first word in the b-line of the Samuel text is ומוריד (from ירד “to go down”). It seems that the two different texts are simply the result of either stylistic choice or dialect differences. We prefer to maintain both texts as they stand. 4Q51 (DSS of Samuel) has the participle מרדד, presumably a piel form of the root רדד “beat down, subdue, subjugate” (DCH). The Greek witnesses of Samuel (B-text παιδεύων “disciplining,” Lucian ἐταπεινωσε “he humbled”) do not really reflect either מוריד “causing to go down” or מרדד “subjugating”. The B-text rather reflects a form of the root יסר “to instruct, discipline”. One may explain this by the fact that the sequence רי (of ?) in older scripts looked almost identical to samek (ס). In this case, the Greek evidence for Samuel would not support a form of the word מרדד, pace Cross (2005, 186), who comments that the Greek terms never translate the hiphil of ירד, “and are better retroverted to מרדד.” The other problem with this retroversion is that רדד is never attested in the piel in Biblical Hebrew nor at Qumran, but rather later in Rabbinic Hebrew (e.g., הִתְחִיל מְרַדֵּד וְיוֹצֵא “He began to flatten (it) and then he went out” mTamid 6:3). An extra dalet could have arisen (i.e., מֹרִד > מרדד) through either dittography or root suppletion, since both stems are so similar in meaning. Thus the reading of 4Q51 is secondary. In terms of the relationship of מוריד to וידבר, it is difficult to derive one from the other via scribal intervention. Both דבר “subdue” (יַדְבֵּר עַמִּים תַּחְתֵּינוּ “And he will subdue peoples underneath us” Ps 47:4) and ירד in the hiphil (בְּאַף עַמִּים הוֹרֵד אֱלֹהִים “In anger cast down peoples, God” Ps 56:8) are used elsewhere in the Psalms. Moreover, the LXX's translation of יַדְבֵּר in Ps 47:4 is with ὑποτάσσω. The wayyiqtol form does not have to be interpreted as past-tense, as reflected by the Secunda ουϊεδαββερ, which reflects waw + yiqtol (in the piel).

v. 49

• The first word of the Psalms text is מפלטי (that is, delivers me [מְפַלְּטִי]), whereas the first word of the Samuel text of מוֹצִיאִי “the one who brought me out”. The difference here, it seems, is largely one of style. We therefore maintain both texts as they stand. Both alternatives have full external support for their respective readings (Peshitta-Samuel is most likely harmonizing to the Psalms text, as is common for the Peshitta of the former prophets [see Morrison 2020]). It is also acknowledged that “פלט and הוציא are synonyms” (Cross et. al. 2005, 189); they correspond semantically to each other in some contexts (see e.g., Job 21:10 and Ps 56:8), in that they both mean “to bring forth” (Young 2007, 59).
• The conjunction that begins v. 49b is אַף indeed in the Psalms text but וְ “and” in the Samuel text. Again, this seems to be largely a matter of style. The versions reflect a confusion regarding the sequence of the consonants אף and מאיבי. The Lucianic text of Samuel reflects מאף איבים (ἐξ ὀργῆς ἐχθρῶν), the LXX of Psalms מאיבי אפים (ἐξ ἐχθρῶν μου ὀργίλων). These must stem from the graphic similarity of the consonants אף and אב. Most likely, the readings of LXX Psalms and Lucian were attempts to make sense of the sequence מאיבי אף under the assumption that אַף here means “anger” (note that Lucian-Samuel has καὶ before the next line). MT Samuel and MT Psalms initially differed due to variation of style. The Psalms version prefers variation where the Samuel, repetition; notice that all the clauses in MT-Samuel vv. 48–49 are connected with waw whereas in MT-Psalms there is a variety of connections—waw, asyndeton, and אַף. Within the Samuel tradition, some witnesses maintained the reading without אף (e.g., Vul) and some with (e.g., Lucian).
• The final word of the Samuel and Psalms text is תַּצִּילֵנִי you will rescue me, whereas the 4Q51 (a Dead Sea Scroll containing a version of Samuel) has the consonants תצרני “You will guard me.” The external evidence is inconclusive, whereas the internal evidence favors נצל, which is the reading we adopt. That is, we maintain the text as it stands. The Lucianic text of Samuel matches 4Q51 in reflecting תצרני “you will keep me” (διετήρησάς), suggesting that the OG Samuel agreed with 4Q51 (contra Ulrich 1978, 112). The external evidence can be explained either by: 1) a misreading in MT Psalms followed by a harmonization of MT Samuel to MT Psalms; or 2) a misreading in 4Q51/OG Psalms. The source of the variation is obviously oral in nature (and even perhaps graphic in some scripts). Resh and lamed are both liquids, which are liable to be perceived the same. Contextually, the psalm makes reference to God “rescuing” (נצל) the Psalmist in two other places (vv. 1, 18), but no reference is made to God “keeping” or “preserving” the Psalmist. Thus the internal evidence favors the reading of MT Psalms and MT Samuel. At some point תצ(י)לני was mistaken for תצרני (4Q51/OG Samuel), and the kaige revision restored the MT version in the Greek tradition.

v. 50-51

• The Psalms text has the form אזמרה, with an extra he at the end, (that is אֲזַמֵּֽרָה I shall sing praise) while the Samuel text has אזמר without the extra he. Contrary to what Young (2005, 63–64) argues for this verse, this cannot be a matter of stylistic difference because the pattern is not consistent. It is not clear how the he would have fallen out. Most likely the Samuel form is simply a defective spelling (viz., אזמרָ). In this verse, it is MT-Psalms that has the longer form, whereas in vv. 24 and 38 it is MT-Samuel that has the longer form. The external evidence does not allow for a decision one way or the other. (Cross et. al. 2005, 189 reconstruct אזכיר from Lucian's έξομολογήσομαί, but this is to be rejected. Throughout the Greek scriptures in general, ἐξομολογέομαι corresponds most often to ידה “to praise”, whose sense comports well with זמר “sing praise). In the vast majority of cases of the verbal root זמר, the modality is volitional; this is especially apparent in its many uses as an imperative (Isa 12:5; Ps 9.12; 30:5; 33:2; 47:7, 8). Note also that in the Psalms, every first person use is cohortative (Ps 7:18, 9:3, 21:14; 27:6; 57:8). The nature of the situation, viz., the psalmist proclaiming that he will praise God, entails a statement of intention and thus volition, rather than the prediction of some future event. Thus the volitional form better fits the context and conforms to Hebrew usage.
• MT-Samuel has the qere מִגְדּוֹל “tower?”. This reading, however, has no external support. The participle in the MT-Psalms's text is therefore preferred. The MT-Samuel reading most likely arose through a confusion of waw and yod (so Cross et. al. 2005, 189) in the Masoretic period. More problematic, however, is that the meaning of this word is not clear. The typical form for “tower” is מִגְדָּל. “In view of the predominant theme of the latter part of the poem, "The one who magnifies the victories" seems better than "The tower of safety" (cf. vv. 2-3) (McCarter 1984, 463).

Bibliography

Baethgen, Friedrich. 1904. Die Psalmen. Göttingen:

Baillet, Maurice. 1962. “8Q2. Psautier.” In Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân, 148–49, plate XXXI. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

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

Bekins, Peter. Forthcoming. “Definiteness” in The Oxford Grammar of Biblical Hebrew.

Briggs, Charles A. and Emilie Grace Briggs. 1906–1907. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

Brooke, Aland England, and Norman McLean, eds. 1906. The Old Testament in Greek. Volume II The Later Historical Books Part I. I and II Samuel. Vol. I,1. London: Cambridge University Press.

Carbajosa, Ignacio. 2020. “10.3.4 Peshitta”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Consulted online on 14 April 2021

Charlesworth, James et. al. 2000. Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. DJD XXXVIII. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Chazon, Esther et. al. 1999. Qumran Cave 4 XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Clines, David J.A. 1989. Job 1–20. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 17. Dallas: Word.

Cohen, Chaim. 1995. “The Basic Meaning of the Term ערפל ‘Darkness.’” Hebrew Studies 36 (1): 7–12.

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowe, S. Peter. First published online: 2020. “3–5.2.5.3 1–2 Samuel (1–2 Reigns)”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Consulted online on 15 September 2022.

Craigie, Peter C. 2004. Psalm 1–50. 2nd edition. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 19. Nashville, TN: Nelson Reference & Electronic.

Crenshaw, James L. 1972. “We Dōrēk ’al-Bāmŏtê ’Āreṣ.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1): 39–53.

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

Cross, Frank Moore. 1975. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature.

Cross, Frank Moore et. al. 2005. Qumran Cave 4 XII 1–2 Samuel. DJD XVII. Oxford: The Claredon Press.

Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. 1953. “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18.” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1): 15–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3261627.

Fabry, Heinz-Josef. 2003. “צַר (1),” ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. Douglas W. Stott, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.

Fernández Marcos, Natalio. 2013. “The Antiochene Edition in the Text History of the Greek Bible.” In Der Antiochenische Text Der Septuaginta in Seiner Bezeugung Und Seiner Bedeutung, edited by Siegfried Kreuzer and Marcus Sigismund, 57–73. De Septuaginta Investigationes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Fernández Marcos, Natalio, and José Ramón Busto Saiz. 1989. El texto antioqueno de la Biblia Griega. 1: 1-2 Samuel. Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 50. Madrid: Inst. de Filología.

Gray, Alison Ruth. 2014. In Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures. Leiden: Brill.

Greenfield, Jonas C. 1958. “Lexicographical Notes I.” Hebrew Union College Annual 29:203–28.

Gordis, Robert. 1971. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Brooklyn: Ktav Publishing House.

Hardy, H.H. 2022. The Development of Biblical Hebrew Prepositions. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. “Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions.” In Reciprocal Constructions, edited by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2016. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2020. “Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew as Noncoordinative Nonsubordination.” Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12 (1): 99–118.

Hope, Edward R. 2003. All Creatures Great and Small: Living Things in the Bible. New York: United Bible Societies.

Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huehnergard, John, and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. 2014. “A Compound Etymology for Biblical Hebrew Zûlātî ‘Except.’” Hebrew Studies 55.

Hupfeld, Hermann. 1855. Die Psalmen. Vol. 1. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes.

Jenni, Ernst. 1992. Die Hebräischen Präpositionen Band 1: Die Präposition Beth. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Jenni, Ernst. 2000. Die Hebräischen Präpositionen Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Kauhanen, Tuuka, and Pessoa da Silva Pinto. 2020. “Recognizing Kaige-Readings in Samuel-Kings.” Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53:67–86.

Keel, Othmar. 1997. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Keil, Carl Friedrich and Franz Delitzsch. 1996. Commentary on the Old Testament. Volume 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Khan, Geoffrey. Forthcoming. “Yiqṭol” in The Oxford Grammar of Biblical Hebrew.

Kruger, Paul A. 2015. “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible: A Few Observations on Prospects and Challenges.” Old Testament Essays 28 (2): 395–420.

Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isa[Superscript a).] Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, v. 6. Leiden: Brill.

Kogan, Leonid. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Martínez, Florentino García; Tigchellar, Eibert J.C. and Van der Woude, Adam S. 1998. Qumran Cave 11 II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford, Claredon Press.

May, Herbert G. 1955. “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‘Many Waters.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1): 9–21.

McCarter, P. Kyle. 1973. “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature.” Harvard Theological Review 66 (4): 403–12.

McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. 1984. 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 8. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. 1984. 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 8. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Miller, Cynthia L. 2003. “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry: (Or, What to Do When Exegesis of What Is There Depends on What Isn’t).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13 (2): 251–70.

Morrison, Craig E. 2020. “3–5.1.4 Peshitta”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Leiden: Brill.

Noegel, Scott. 2017. “On the Wings of the Winds: Towards an Understanding of Winged Mischwesen in the Ancient Near East.” KASKAL 14:15–54.

Notarius, Tania. 2017. “Playing with Words and Identity: Reconsidering ‪לָרִב בָּאֵשׁ‬, אֲנָךְ, and קֵץ/קַיִץ in Amos’ Visions.” Vetus Testamentum 67 (1): 59–86.

Pinker, Aron. 2005. “On the Meaning of השוחנ תשק.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5.

Rahlfs, Alfred. 1931. Psalmi Cum Odis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1984. “Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts.” Linguistics 22.779-809.

Robar, Elizabeth. 2014. The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. Leiden: Brill.

Sanders, Paul. 2000. “Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18.” In Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, edited by Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch, 277–311. Leiden: Brill

Sperling, S. David. 2017. Ve-Eileh Divrei David: Essays in Semitics, Hebrew Bible and History of Biblical Scholarship. Leiden: Brill.

Stec, David. 2020. “10.3.3 Targum”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Consulted online on 14 April 2021

Sutcliffe, E. F. 1953. “The Clouds as Water-Carriers in Hebrew Thought.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1): 99–103.

Ulrich, Eugene Charles. 1978. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Leiden: Brill.

Walton, John. H. 2009. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wevers, J.W. 1995. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SCS 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Wilson, Daniel. 2021. “הָיָה in Biblical Hebrew.” In Semitic Languages and Cultures, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan, 1st ed., 7:455–72. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.

Young, Theron. 2005. “Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22: Two Versions of the Same Song.” In Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary, 53–70. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.