Psalm 37/Notes/Textual.vv. 39-40.57499

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

v. 40: The lemma of 4Q171 is וימלטם ויפלטם מרשעים, reading וימלטם instead of ויפלטם and ויפלטם instead of יפלטם. There are, then, two textual issues in this verse: (1) is the first verb מלט or פלט, and (2) does the second verb have a waw conjunction (ויפלטם) or not (יפלטם)?

  • Other textual evidence.
    • The LXX has καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐξελεῖται αὐτοὺς. The use of two different Greek verbs (cf. Ps 71:2 where ῥῦσαί με καὶ ἐξελοῦ με = תַּצִּילֵ֥נִי וּֽתְפַלְּטֵ֑נִי) and an additional conjunction (καὶ) suggests that the parent text of LXX agreed with 4Q171. (Elsewhere, the LXX has no problem repeating the same Greek verb if the parent text repeats the same Hebrew verb [e.g., ἐρρύσθη... ἐρρύσθημεν = נִמְלְטָה֮...נִמְלָֽטְנוּ in Ps 124:7].)
    • The Peshitta, which has the same verb twice, the second time with the conjunction (ܘܡܦܨܐ...ܘܡܦܨܐ), probably read ויפלטם ויפלטם.
    • Jerome (iuxta Hebr.) has only one verb (et salvabit eos) (probably a haplography).
    • The mss in Kennicott agree with MT.
  • Solution.
    • Given the tendency to add waw conjunctions at the beginnings of b-lines in this psalm (cf. vv. 1, 25, 31, 38, 40), the conjunction on the second verb (the first word of the b-line) is probably secondary.
    • The issue of מלט or פלט is more difficult to decide. Given the graphic and sonic similarities between וימלטם and ויפלטם, either reading could be easily explained as a scribal error. The issue comes down to which reading makes better sense in the context of the psalm. It is interesting to note, in this regard, that there is one other instance in the psalm where the same word occurs twice within a very short span of text: כָּל֖וּ... כָּֽלוּ (v. 20), which just so happens to be the final verse of the first half of the psalm and is, therefore, structurally parallel to וַֽיְפַ֫לְּטֵ֥ם יְפַלְּטֵ֣ם in v. 40). The reading of MT thus fits very well within the poetic structure. Just as the wicked are emphatically finished off (v. 20), so the righteous are emphatically rescued (v. 40). The reading of 4Q171 and LXX is either a scribal error or an attempt at stylistic variation.