About the Grammar Layer

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

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

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

Grammar Visuals for Psalm 37

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

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

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

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

v. 1

A number of witnesses read a conjunction before the second אַל (v. 1b), including the LXX (μηδε), the Peshitta (ܘܠܐ), Jerome iuxta Hebr (neque), the Targum (ולא), and some 20 mss listed by Kennicott. The conjunction feels natural (cf. Ps 6:2), and this naturalness might explain how it entered the textual tradition as a secondary reading. Throughout the psalm, the versions show a tendency to add coordinating conjunctions at the beginnings of b-lines (cf. vv. 1, 25, 31, 38, 40), probably to facilitate reading. Furthermore, the alef as the first letter of the b-line strengthens the acrostic nature of the psalm (cf. Ruiz 2009, 51). (On the other hand, scribes might have removed the conjunction in harmonization to Prov 24:19—אַל־תִּתְחַ֥ר בַּמְּרֵעִ֑ים אַל־תְּ֝קַנֵּ֗א בָּרְשָׁעִֽים).

v. 2

11QPsD reads יבלון (probably a defective spelling of יִבֹּלוּן) (cf. DJD XXIII, 65). The LXX (ἀποπεσοῦνται) probably agrees with this reading. Although the verb ἀποπίπτω does not elsewhere translate the root בלה, but rather מלל ( Job 24:24; Ps 89:6) and נפל (Job 29:24; Ps 5:11), the related verb ἐκπίπτω is used to translate נבל in Isa 40:7—ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν.

v. 3

In place of אֱמוּנָה, the LXX has ἐπὶ τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτῆς, perhaps reading הֲמוֹנָהּ (so BHS, LXX.D; cf. v. 16b; cf. Ezek 29:19). 11QPsD appears to read אמונה (cf. DJD XXIII, 68), and so do the other ancient witnesses: Aquila (πίστιν), Symmachus (διηνεκῶς), Quinta (πίστιν), Peshitta (ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ), Jerome (fide), Targum (בהימנותא). Thus the external evidence favours the reading of the MT. Furthermore, the notion of "security" (see below) fits better in the context (cf. Ruiz 2009, 51). LXX's πλοῦτος (=המון) may be explained as secondary due to either an aural confusion brought about the the weakening of ה in pronunciation, or simply assimilating a difficult Hebrew reading to an easier one.
The word אֱמוּנָה could be either the direct object of רְעֵה or an adverbial modifier. The issue depends on the meaning of the verb רְעֵה (see lexical semantics).
- Option 1: Direct object.
  - Option 1a: "shepherd/graze upon>>be busy with faithfulness" (cf. HALOT, on analogy with Prov 15:14 וּפִי כְסִילִים יִרְעֶה אִוֶּלֶת). So Targum: "be occupied with (עסוק) faithfulness" (Stec 2004, 79).
  - Option 1b: "graze on faithfulness>>a reliable food supply" (see Kselman 1997, 252). The following verb ענג in v. 4 is also associated with food (cf. Isa 55:3; 58:14; 66:11).
  - Option 1c: "befriend faithfulness" (ESV). According to this view, the verb רעה is from a different root.
  - Option 1d: "shepherd>>guard faithfulness", i.e., "maintain your integrity" (NET, cf. NJPS: "remain loyal").
- Option 2: Adverbial. "Live securely" (CSB; so Baethgen 1904, 104; Hossfeld and Zenger 1993, 234). Cf. Symmachus and Jerome (who was probably influenced by Symmachus): διηνεκῶς (adverbial -ως ending), fide (ablative case). The image is similar to that in Isa 14:30: "The poorest of the poor will find pasture (וְרָעוּ), and the needy will lie down in safety" (NIV; cf. Ezek 34:14, 18f; Isa 33:6). On nominals which function adverbially, see GKC 118m-q.

v. 4

LXX omits the conjunction at the beginning of v. 4 (cf. Peshitta). 11QPs-d has the conjunction, which weighs the external evidence in favor of it. The LXX omission might be due to haplography within the LXX tradition (cf. the surrounding και's of 3b and 4b as well as the identical beginning of the first word of 4a, καταρύφησον).

vv. 5-6

v. 5: LXX and Targum read גַל (from גלה, "reveal") instead of גוֹל (from גלל, "roll"). But see the same expression in Ps 22:9 (גֹּ֣ל אֶל־יְהוָ֣ה, where the LXX translates accurately as ἐλπίζειν) and Prov 16:3 (גֹּ֣ל אֶל־יְהוָ֣ה מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ). So Jerome: volve.
v. 6: The Masorah Parva notes that מִשׁפָּטֶךָ is a defective plural which occurs a total of five times in the Bible. Kennicott lists more than 60 mss which have the full plural spelling: משפטיך (cf. de Rossi pg. 25; cf. Peshitta ܘܕܝܢ̈ܝܟ which has a plural). Some of the earliest witnesses have a singular noun, e.g., LXX (τὸ κρίμα σου), Jerome (iudicium), which fits better in the literary context (cf. the collocation of צדקה and משׁפט in Gen 18:19; Pss 33:5; 99:4; 106:3; Job 37:23; Prov 16:8; 21:3). מִשׁפָּטֶךָ should probably be analyzed as a pausal form (Baethgen 1904, 105; Revell, "List of Pausal Forms" 2004, 33).

v. 7

The MT (וְהִתְח֪וֹלֵ֫ל) has a hithpoel imperative (root: חיל), which occurs also in Job 15:20 and Jer 23:19). BHS and HALOT propose reading וְתוֹחֵל instead (a hiphil 2ms from the root יחל = "wait"; cf. Aquila ἀποκαραδόκει = "expect earnestly"), but our oldest Hebrew witness, the Qumran pesher manuscript 4Q171, supports the reading התחולל in its lemma. The LXX's translation (ἱκέτευσον = "supplicate, beseech"; cf. Symmachus ἱκέτευε) is probably just an attempt to make sense of this difficult text (cf. Dorival 2021, 434).

v. 8

The lamed preposition + infinitive construct (לְהָרֵעַ) modifies the clause and indicates the result of becoming upset ("so dass du nur schadest" [Jenni 2000, 220]; cf. Deut 9:8, 20; 29:26; cf. LXX: μὴ παραζήλου ὥστε πονηρεύεσθαι). The particle אַךְ modifies לְהָרֵעַ, indicating that "doing evil" is the only possible outcome of getting angry. As Hupfeld explains, "Anger only serves to lead a person into sin, particularly inappropriate speech against God (cf. Pss 39:2; 73:2)... such that the person himself falls in with the evildoers" (1868, 307).
Alternatively, אַךְ לְהָרֵעַ might be "a clause to itself (cf. Prov 11:24; 21:5; 22:16): it tends only to evil-doing, it ends only in thy involving thyself in sin" (Delitzsch 1996, 283). Cf. NIV: "do not fret--it leads only to evil" (so ESV, NLT, NET, etc.).

v. 9

v. 10

4Q171 reads a first person singular verb with a he suffix in its lemma: ואתבוננה ("I will stare")—ועוד מעט ואין רשע | ואתבוננה על מקומו ואיננו (reading adopted by Craigie 1983, 294). The LXX (καὶ ζητήσεις) agrees with MT in reading a 2ms verb. The 2ms verb better fits the context (cf. the consistent use of 2ms verbs and pronouns through vv. 1-9). The 1cs reading of 4Q171 might be a harmonization to vv. 35-36, a similar strophe which uses first-person language (cf. Ruiz 2009, 53). Or, the variant אתבוננה may have a graphic explanation. At one point in the textual history, התבוננתָ might have been written as אתבוננתא (cf. Kutscher 1974, 163), which could easily be confused for אתבוננא / אתבוננה.

v. 11

v. 12

4Q171 (along with a few medieval mss listed in de Rossi [p. 26]) reads בא (qatal or participle, though more likely a participle) instead of יָבֹא (a yiqtol)—זומם רשע לצדיק וחורק ע[ליו שניו ]יהוה ישחק לו כיא ראה כיא בא יומו. The LXX (ἥξει) has a future indicative verb, which could attest to either reading. If יָבֹא is the earlier reading, then the yod might have dropped out due to haplography: כי בא << כי יבא.

v. 13

v. 14

v. 15

vv. 16-17

v. 16: Instead of the plural adjective רַבִּים modifying the nominal רְשָׁעִים ("many wicked people"), the LXX has a singular adjective (πολύν) modifying the word for "wealth" (πλοῦτον) (cf. Jerome: divitiae... multae; Peshitta: ܩܢܝܢܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ). Other witnesses, including 4Q171 (רשעים רבי[ם]), agree with the MT and read רַבִּים (cf. Aquila and Symmachus: πολλῶν; Targum: רשיעין סגיעין). The LXX reading is probably an attempt to make the text easier to understand (cf. Barthélemy 2005).
v. 17: The participle סוֹמֵךְ could either be an active predicative participle ("YHWH is supporting the righteous", as in v. 18a; cf. LXX: ὑποστηρίζει, most modern translations) or a nominalized constituent functioning as the predicate complement ("YHWH is the supporter of the righteous"). The word order suggests the latter. A predicate-complement—subject word order is easier to explain than a verb—object—subject word order.

v. 18

The LXX reads ὁδοὺς (perhaps from דרכי) instead of ἡμέρας (=MT יְמֵ֣י, so Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). The LXX's reading is probably a harmonization to Ps 1:6a: γινώσκει κύριος ὁδὸν δικαίων.

v. 19

The word רָעָה could be either (1) an adjective modifying עֵת (cf. LXX ἐν καιρῷ πονηρῷ; Jerome tempore malo) or (2) a noun in construct with עֵת (cf. Targum בעידן בישתא). The fact that עֵת is "often in construct defined by the noun following" (BDB) supports the latter analysis. (Because there is little to no difference in meaning, the alternative is not represented on the diagram.)

v. 20

Verse 20 contains one of the most difficult exegetical issues in this psalm. It is not clear whether the phrase כִּיקַר כָּרִים in v. 20b refers to "the fat of lambs" (KJV), "the glory of the pastures" (ESV), or "fuel in a furnace" (REB). See The Text, Grammar, and Meaning of Ps 37:20 for an in-depth discussion. In short, the phrase probably refers to "the glory of the pastures" (ESV, cf. Ps 65:14), i.e., "the flowers of the field" (NIV), which, despite their beauty, quickly "come to an end" (אבד, v. 20a). The determining factor for this decision is the surrounding context of agricultural images for the wicked. The agricultural image for the wicked here at the end of the first half of the psalm (vv. 1-20) corresponds to the agricultural image for the wicked at the beginning of the psalm ("like grass," v. 2). Indeed, all of the similes for the wicked in Ps 37 are taken from the agricultural domain (cf. vv. 2, 20, 35). Furthermore, the image of fading flowers fits well with the image of vanishing smoke in the next line (v. 20c). Both flowers and smoke are images of transitoriness (cf. Hos 13:3; Ps 103:15-16). The point of these images is that the end of the wicked will be soon and sudden. This is the point of the verse even if an alternative interpretation is adopted ("fat of lambs" or "burning of ovens"). As Klein writes, "Entscheidend ist jedoch nicht das Bild, sondern die Aussage: Die Bösewichte verschwinden, als wären sie Rauch. Von ihnen bleibt nichts übrig, nicht einmal Asche" (Klein 2018, 68). Although they appear to flourish for the moment, their demise is imminent. And when they are destroyed, there will be no trace of their existence.
v. 20c: Many witnesses appear to read כעשן (with a kaf), including 4Q171 (כלו כעשן כולו), LXX (ὡσεί), Jerome iuxta Hebr (sicut), Peshitta (ܘܐܝܟ), and more than 30 medieval Hebrew mss listed by Kennicott (cf. Isa 51:6—כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֜יִם כֶּעָשָׁ֤ן נִמְלָ֨חוּ֙; Hos 13:3). Only MT and the Targum (ובתנן גהנם) clearly read a beth preposition (cf. the similar issue in Ps 102:4—כִּֽי־כָל֣וּ בְעָשָׁ֣ן יָמָ֑י), which is probably best interpreted as a beth essentiae (Baethgen 1904, 106; cf. GKC 119i). If the phrase כִּיקַר כָּרִים in the previous line refers to the "fat of lambs," then the beth preposition fits well, since animal sacrifices go up "in/as smoke." It makes sense, then, that the Targum, which interprets כָּרִים to refer to lambs, would also read a beth preposition. But if the phrase כִּיקַר כָּרִים refers to the flowers of a field (see exegetical issue), then the beth preposition "in/as smoke" does not work as well, unless we are to think that the image in this verse is that of a field set on fire (cf. Dahood 2008, 230). If כִּיקַר כָּרִים refers flowers in a field, then the kaf preposition ("like smoke") fits better. The verse compares YHWH's enemies to two different things: flowers which quickly fade (v. 20b) and smoke which quickly vanishes (v. 20c). Rather than a single image (a field on fire), the verse gives us two images, flowers and smoke, both images of transience. Cf. Hosea 13:3—"Therefore they will be like the morning mist (כַּעֲנַן־בֹּ֔קֶר), like the early dew (כַטַּ֖ל) that disappears, like chaff (כְּמֹץ֙) swirling from a threshing floor, like smoke (כְעָשָׁ֖ן) escaping through a window" (NIV).
It is not clear whether the prepositional phrase כֶּעָשָׁן modifies the first כּלוּ, which precedes it, or the second כּלוּ, which follows it. The Masoretic tradition might support grouping the PP with the first כּלוּ, since the preposition in בֶעָשָׁן has no dagesh and the accent under the first כָּל֖וּ (tarcha) is conjunctive (so Baethgen 1904, 106; a number of Masoretic manuscripts, however, do have a dagesh; see Ginsburg 1913, 73). The word בֶעָשָׁ֣ן also has a conjunctive accent (munach), but this accent might be a substitute for the disjunctive accent revia mugrash (Delitzsch 1996, 284). The word order might also support grouping the prepositional phrase with the first verb, since modifiers typically follow (rather than precede) the verbs they modify (cf. Ps 102:4—כִּֽי־כָל֣וּ בְעָשָׁ֣ן יָמָ֑י).

vv. 21-22

v. 23

v. 24

v. 25

Several witnesses read וגם instead of just גם, including the lemma of 4Q171 (נער היי]תי וגם זקנתי), 17 manuscripts in Kennicott, and probably also the parent text of the LXX: καὶ γὰρ ἐγήρασα (cf. Symmachus: ἀλλὰ καί). But there seems to be a tendency for these and other witnesses to add coordinating conjunctions in this psalm (cf. vv. 1, 31, 38, 40), probably to facilitate the reading of the text.

v. 26

On the common construction היה ל to indicate a change of state, see HALOT היה entry 3c. In this verse, the copular היה is probably elided (cf. LXX εἰς εὐλογίαν ἔσται).

vv. 27-28a*

For the change from the verse order of the MT for vv. 28-31, see the note on 28b.

v. 30*

v. 31*

Some witnesses read ולא instead of just לא (LXX [καὶ οὐχ], Peshitta [ܘܠܐ], one manuscript in Kennicott). There is a tendency to add waw conjunctions at the beginnings of b-lines (cf. vv. 1, 25, 38, 40).
On the apparent mismatch in grammatical number between תִמְעַ֣ד and אֲשֻׁרָיו, see GKC 145k: "Plurals of names of animals or things, and of abstracts, whether they be masculine or feminine, are frequently construed with the feminine singular of the verbal predicate."

v. 28b*

Verse 28BA contains the most significant textual issue in the psalm. The ESV, representative of most modern translations, follows the reading of the Masoretic Text (לְעוֹלָ֣ם נִשְׁמָ֑רוּ), which it translates, "They are preserved forever." Other translations, however, choose to emend the text. The NJB, for example, adopts as its Hebrew text עַוָּלִים לְעוֹלָם נִשְׁמָדוּ, which it translates as "Evil-doers will perish eternally." Other translations appear to adopt a slightly different Hebrew text: עַוָּלִים נִשְׁמָדוּ (or perhaps עַוָּלִים נִצְמָתוּ): "Wrongdoers will be destroyed" (cf. BDS, DHH94I). See The Text of Ps 37:28 for an in-depth discussion of the issue. In short, there are good reasons to think that the earliest reading of Ps 37:28c is wrong-doers are exterminated (עַוָּלִם נִשְׁמָדוּ). In the first place, this reading appears to be supported by the oldest witnesses (4Q171 and LXX). It also explains how the other readings came about. The development of the text might have looked something like the following: (1) The original text read עַוָּלִם נִשְׁמָדוּ (so probably LXX and 4Q171), (2) Then the ד in נִשְׁמָדוּ was confused for a ר, and so the text became נִשְׁמָרוּ, and (3) because it makes no sense for עַוָּלִם to be the subject of נִשְׁמָרוּ, the word עַוָּלִם came to be vocalized/understood as עוֹלָם. Finally, (4) because adverbial לְעוֹלָם is more common than adverbial עוֹלָם, the text was changed to לְעוֹלָם נִשְׁמָרוּ. By contrast, it is difficult to explain how the reading לְעוֹלָם נִשְׁמָרוּ would have led to the reading עַוָּלִם נִשְׁמָדוּ. The second reason for adopting עַוָּלִם נִשְׁמָדוּ as the earlier reading is that it fits well in the context. It restores the otherwise disturbed acrostic structure by having a word that begins with ע at the beginning of the line. It also fits well with the parallel line in v. 28d ("the offspring of the wicked are cut off" (וְזֶ֖רַע רְשָׁעִ֣ים נִכְרָֽת). This pair of lines about the wicked (v. 28cd) also matches the pair of lines about the righteous in the following verse (v. 29).

v. 29*

v. 32

v. 33

v. 34

vv. 35-36

v. 35: Cf. Ibn Ezra (trans. 2009, 280): "The word ke-ezrach is vocalized with a pattach. It is in the construct. The word etz has been omitted."
v. 36: The MT has a third person verb at the beginning of v. 36 (וַ֭יַּֽעֲבֹר), which could either refer to the passing away of the wicked man ("but he passed away," ESV, cf. NIV, CEV, NJPS) or to the passing by of an onlooker ("one passes by," NET, cf. LUT, ELB). The 3ms form is supported also by Symmachus (παρελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ) and the Targum (ופסק). Other modern translations reflect a first person verb (וָאֶעֲבֹר): "I passed by" (GNT, cf. NLT, CSB, HFA, NGÜ, GNB, ZÜR), a reading which is supported by the LXX (καὶ παρῆλθον), Jerome (iuta Hebr.) (transivi), the Peshitta (ܥܒܪܬ), and perhaps also by 4Q171 (ראי]תי רשע עריץ ומתע[רה...ו]אעבור על מ[קו]מו וה[נה אינ]נו וא[בקשהו] ולוא [נמצא]) (transcription by García Martínez and Tigchelaar 1997, 346; cf. DJD אעבור על פ[ניו], corrected by Strugnell 1970, 216 to ו]אעבור על מ[קו]מו וה[נה, so Pardee 1973). The strong manuscript support for this reading, along with the fact that it fits very well in the immediate context (parallel with the 1st person verb וָאֲבַקְשֵׁהוּ), suggests that it is the original reading. The reading וַיַּעֲבֹר (understood to refer to the "passing away" of the wicked person, so Targum) is probably an assimilation to the preceding verse which describes the activity of the wicked person. Another factor in favor of the 1cs reading (וָאֶעֲבֹר) is the use of הִנֵּה ("look!" or "get this!"). The particle הִנֵּה assumes that some noteworthy piece of information is about to be presented. If the wicked person "vanished" (ויעבר), then the fact that he "is no more" is not noteworthy. It would indeed be noteworthy, however, if the psalmist passed by expecting to see the wicked person but the wicked person was nowhere to be found. This use of עבר + הנה is similar to Prov 24:30-31—"I passed by (עָבַרְתִּי) the field of a sluggard... and behold (וְהִנֵּה), it was all overgrown with thorns..." (ESV; see also Ezek 37:2).

v. 37

v. 37a: The adjectives might modify the implied noun דֶּרֶךְ (cf. v. 34): "Keep to the blameless [way], and consider the upright [way]" (Kselman 1997, 253). The adjectives תם/תמים and ישׁר are elsewhere used to characterize pathways (e.g., תמם Pss 18:31; 101:2, 6; Job 4:6; ישׁר Ps 5:9; Prov 14:12; 16:25), and the act of "guarding" (שׁמר) can have a "pathway" as its patient (e.g., Prov 2:20) (cf. Kselman 1997, 253-254). Or, in light of the b-line, the adjectives might modify the implied noun אִישׁ: "observe the blameless [man]; look at the upright [man]" (so Rashi; Ibn Ezra). Or, the adjectives might function as abstract nouns: "observe that which is blameless [i.e., blamelessness...]" (cf. LXX).
v. 37b: But in the Psalm, "peace" (שָׁלוֹם) is the final result of those who have trusted YHWH (cf. v. 11). It seems likely, therefore, that the "the last part of our verse is to be interpreted as if written, For peace is the future of the man of integrity. (The word תם is to be read as if written twice)" (Ibn Ezra, trans. 2009; i.e., שָׁלוֹם is not in construct with אִישׁ but is the predicate complement of the clause). So Targum: ארום דסוף בר נשא שלמא.

v. 38

4Q171 divides the words differently: (יחד ואחר[ית), analyzing the ו as a conjunction instead of the final consonant of יחדו. LXX agrees with MT.

vv. 39-40

v. 39: Some textual witnesses omit the waw in וּתְשׁוּעַת in order to "fix" the acrostic structure (see e.g., Jerome iuxta Hebr., two mss in Kennicott). The oldest witnesses, however, have the waw (e.g., 4Q171 ות[שועת...]; LXX: σωτηρία δὲ).
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.

Bibliography

Baethgen, Friedrich. 1904. Die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Barthélemy, Dominique. 2005. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 4: Psaumes. Edited by Norbert Lohfink. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, 50,4. Fribourg/Suisse: Academic Press.

Craigie, Peter C. 1983. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco, TX: Word.

Dahood, Mitchell. 2008. Psalms II: 51-100: Introduction, Translations, and Notes. Vol. 17. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Dorival, Gilles. 2021. Les Psaumes. Edited by Monique Alexandre. Vol. 1. Psaumes 1-40. La Bible d’Alexandrie 16. Paris: Cerf.

García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.

Ginsburg, C. D., ed. 1913. Liber Psalmorum. London: British and Foreign Bible Society.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. 2011. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Hupfeld, Hermann. 1868. Die Psalmen. Vol. 2. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes.

Ibn Ezra. 2009. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra Commentary on the First Book of Psalms. Translated by H. Norman Strickman. Boston: Academic Studies Press.

Keil and Delitzsch 1996. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Kennicott, Benjamin. 1776. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum : Cum Variis Lectionibus.

Kselman, John A. 1997. “Two Notes on Psalm 37.” Biblica 78 (2): 252–54.

Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isa^a). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, v. 6. Leiden: Brill.

Pardee, Dennis. 1973. “A Restudy of the Commentary on Psalm 37 from Qumran Cave 4 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, Vol. V No. 171).” Revue de Qumrân 8 (2 (30)): 163–94.

Rashi. Rashi on Psalms.

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

Ruiz, Eleuterio Ramón. 2009. Los pobres tomarán posesión de la tierra: el Salmo 37 y su orientación escatológica. Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino.

Stec, David M., ed. 2004. The Targum of Psalms. The Aramaic Bible, v. 16. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press.

Psalm 37 Grammar