Psalm 78/Notes

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

All notes

V. 1 (Method:Grammar)

For alternative plural "ears" see Kennicott 73, 74, 76, 133, 172, 192, 266 (VTH vol. 4, 373), אזניכם, as well as TgPss (אודניכון) and the Syr. (ܐ̈ܕܢܝܟܘܢ). 11Q6, however, lacks any sign of the plural yod, with אוזנכמה. Although the semantic result is plural "ears" in any case— indicated by plural addressees—it is not unheard of to refer to a group's hearing with a singular collective (see also Isa 55:3; Jer 9:19; 25:4; 35:15).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 1 (Phrasal)

v. 1 עַ֭מִּי – As relationship-possessor, עַ֭מִּי does not specify the possessor of the people, but rather the psalmist belongs to the people and thus expresses solidarity with them, as brought out in the shift to first-person plural in vv. 3-4. Nevertheless, הַאֲזִ֣ינָה עַ֭מִּי תּוֹרָתִ֑י echoes the Song of Moses (cf. הַאֲזִ֥ינוּ ... אִמְרֵי־פִֽי in Deut 32:1) and thus gives the psalmist a certain authority.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 1 (Phrasal)

v. 1 – The collocation of the verb נטה with אֹזֶן, "bend your ear," is an idiom which amounts to a similar meaning as the preceding parallel verb, "listen" (the latter of which, הַאֲזִ֣ינָה, is also derived from the root √אזן, "ear"); see also Pss 17:6; 31:3; 45:11; 49:5; 71:2; 86:1; 88:3; 102:3 and 116:2.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 1 (Phrasal)

v. 1 לְאָ֫סָ֥ף – As is typical in the superscriptions of the Psalms, the ל preceding a proper noun indicates authorship (see, e.g., the arguments in https://psalms.scriptura.org/w/Ledavid). In the present case, however, it is both possible that Asaph the individual was the author (see his mention among the singers Heman and Ethan in 1 Chr 15:17—cf. Pss 88, 89) or one of the Asaphite school of Levitical musicians later in the First Temple period.

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 2 (Method:Grammar)

If there was any doubt that מִנִּי־קֶֽדֶם modifies חִ֝יד֗וֹת, both the Syr. and TgPss provides the relative particle "which are from of old."[1]

Despite the gender disagreement, under this alternative reading of the relative clause in v. 3, חִ֝יד֗וֹת would be best read as the antecedent of the suffix on וַנֵּדָעֵ֑ם.

The second alternative position is in apposition to the "riddles of old," as a headless relative clause. Such an interpretation is illustrated by the CSB: "I will speak mysteries from the past—things we have heard and known and that our ancestors have passed down to us" (cf. ESV, NABRE, NIV, NJPS).

Code to display this note elsewhere


Vv. 3-4 (Method:Grammar)

For our preferred headless relative clause of v. 3 as subordinate to the main clause in v. 4a, see the NET: "What we have heard and learned—that which our ancestors have told us—we will not hide from their descendants" (cf. DHH, SG21, TOB and the German versions; cf. Delitzsch 1871, 356), as well as the LXX.[2] This syntax has also been preferred in light of the person shift from first singular to the body of the חִ֝יד֗וֹת in vv. 3ff, recounted in the first plural.

The alternative revocalized niphal represents the LXX's passive, "It was not hidden from their children"; cf. the REB).[3]

The alternative placement of לְד֥וֹר אַחֲר֗וֹן follows translations understanding the phrase to belong to the following participial clause (as most English versions, and the Syr., with its finite verb: "so that we might not hide them from their children, but relate to another generation..."; Taylor 2020, 313).[4] The preferred reading, however, is evident in the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate: "They have not been hidden from their children, in another generation,"[5] and the poetic line division of the LXX, as explicit in Sinaiticus and followed by Rahlfs. For other instances of participles functioning as predicative complements, as מְסַפְּרִים here, see also Judg 19:22; 1 Sam 17:19.

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

V. 3a (Method:Grammar)

Another possibility is to read אֲשֶׁ֣ר as a headless relative particle (as the preferred interpretation below), though with וַנֵּדָעֵ֑ם as the main clause. Such is found in the Syr. ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫܡܥܢ ܝܕܥܢ ܐܢܝܢ ("we know those things that we have heard," Taylor 2020, 313), and would result in a hanging topic left-dislocation of the relativized content, in light of the waw on וַנֵּדָעֵ֑ם consistently attested in Hebrew manuscripts. This is not impossible, but the relative content containing all of v. 3 has been preferred (see below).

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

v. 4 (Phrasal)

v. 4 תְּהִלּ֣וֹת יְהוָ֑ה – As indicated by the gloss "praiseworthy deeds" (SDBH), YHWH is the agent of these deeds, rather than the recipient of praise, as made clear by the following phrases וֶעֱזוּז֥וֹ וְ֝נִפְלְאוֹתָ֗יו אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָֽׂה.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 5 (Verbal)

This function of the wayyiqtol may reflect an original expression of result being extended ""that of a general sequential form, its tense and aspect being specified by context... extended to express general connection to what precedes, not necessarily only connection of temporal sequence..."" (Khan forthcoming, vayyiqṭol, 1-2). See, e.g., the Syr. ܕܰܐܩܺܝܡ ""such that he established..."" The Peshitta's translation, completely plausible, would reflect an instance of co-subordination (i.e., semantically subordinate, though lacking a subordination conjunction). For a similar example of a wayyiqtol specifying the actions introduced in the previous clause (Hatav 1997, 69), see Gen 43:16-17:  וַיַּ֨רְא יוֹסֵ֣ף אִתָּם֮ אֶת־בִּנְיָמִין֒ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לַֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־בֵּית֔וֹ הָבֵ֥א אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים הַבָּ֑יְתָה וּטְבֹ֤חַ טֶ֙בַח֙ וְהָכֵ֔ן כִּ֥י אִתִּ֛י יֹאכְל֥וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בַּֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם׃ וַיַּ֣עַשׂ הָאִ֔ישׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר אָמַ֣ר יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיָּבֵ֥א הָאִ֛ישׁ אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בֵּ֥יתָה יוֹסֵֽף׃. See also Khan's discussion of ""unordered addition"" and elaborative specification (Vayyiqṭol, 58-60), for example, 1 Kgs 18:13. See also v. 44 below.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 5 (Verbal)

This function of the wayyiqtol may reflect an original expression of result being extended ""that of a general sequential form, its tense and aspect being specified by context... extended to express general connection to what precedes, not necessarily only connection of temporal sequence..."" (Khan forthcoming, vayyiqṭol, 1-2). See, e.g., the Syr. ܕܰܐܩܺܝܡ ""such that he established..."" The Peshitta's translation, completely plausible, would reflect an instance of co-subordination (i.e., semantically subordinate, though lacking a subordination conjunction). For a similar example of a wayyiqtol specifying the actions introduced in the previous clause (Hatav 1997, 69), see Gen 43:16-17:  וַיַּ֨רְא יוֹסֵ֣ף אִתָּם֮ אֶת־בִּנְיָמִין֒ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לַֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־בֵּית֔וֹ הָבֵ֥א אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים הַבָּ֑יְתָה וּטְבֹ֤חַ טֶ֙בַח֙ וְהָכֵ֔ן כִּ֥י אִתִּ֛י יֹאכְל֥וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בַּֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם׃ וַיַּ֣עַשׂ הָאִ֔ישׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר אָמַ֣ר יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיָּבֵ֥א הָאִ֛ישׁ אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בֵּ֥יתָה יוֹסֵֽף׃. See also Khan's discussion of ""unordered addition"" and elaborative specification (Vayyiqṭol, 58-60), for example, 1 Kgs 18:13. See also v. 44 below.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 5 (Verbal)

This function of the wayyiqtol may reflect an original expression of result being extended ""that of a general sequential form, its tense and aspect being specified by context... extended to express general connection to what precedes, not necessarily only connection of temporal sequence..."" (Khan forthcoming, vayyiqṭol, 1-2). See, e.g., the Syr. ܕܰܐܩܺܝܡ ""such that he established..."" The Peshitta's translation, completely plausible, would reflect an instance of co-subordination (i.e., semantically subordinate, though lacking a subordination conjunction). For a similar example of a wayyiqtol specifying the actions introduced in the previous clause (Hatav 1997, 69), see Gen 43:16-17:  וַיַּ֨רְא יוֹסֵ֣ף אִתָּם֮ אֶת־בִּנְיָמִין֒ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לַֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־בֵּית֔וֹ הָבֵ֥א אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים הַבָּ֑יְתָה וּטְבֹ֤חַ טֶ֙בַח֙ וְהָכֵ֔ן כִּ֥י אִתִּ֛י יֹאכְל֥וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בַּֽצָּהֳרָֽיִם׃ וַיַּ֣עַשׂ הָאִ֔ישׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר אָמַ֣ר יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיָּבֵ֥א הָאִ֛ישׁ אֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בֵּ֥יתָה יוֹסֵֽף׃. See also Khan's discussion of ""unordered addition"" and elaborative specification (Vayyiqṭol, 58-60), for example, 1 Kgs 18:13. See also v. 44 below.

Code to display this note elsewhere


Vv. 5-8 (Method:Grammar)

v. 5 – The plural antecedent of the suffix on לְ֝הוֹדִיעָ֗ם refers to both the עֵד֨וּת׀ and the תוֹרָה֮.

vv. 5-8 – For the continuation of the scope of למען, see Jerome's (Hebr.) ut "so that" at the beginning of vv. 6-8 (and, likewise, the ܕ in the Syr. vv. 6-7).

v. 6 – The Syr. seems to take יָ֝קֻ֗מוּ as part of the modifying phrase בָּנִ֣ים יִוָּלֵ֑דוּ (see ܒܢ̈ܝܐ ܕܡܬܝܠܕܝܢ ܘܩܝܡܝܢ "the children who are being born and remaining," Taylor 2020, 313). The accents make this interpretation unlikely, however, as well as "remaining" being a strange rendering of יָ֝קֻ֗מוּ.

For the compound predicate interpretation, see the discussion of the multi-verb predication at phrase level (see, e.g., the NIV: "and they in turn would tell their children," cf. DHH, GNT, NABRE, NJPS, RVC). While prototypically we would expect serial verb constructions to be asyndetic, waw-coordination is not unheard of (see, e.g., 1 Chr 22:16), and it is unclear what the "rising up" could mean if construed as its own verbal event (perhaps, "growing up," as the NET and SG21). While קום's role in serial verb constructions is well-documented in prose (see Andrason 2019), it is, admittedly, less common in poetry. Nevertheless, the agreement in person, number, TAM and polarity values support the serial verb reading. See also the omission in HaEdut: והבנים שיִיוולדו יספרו לבניהם.

v. 8 – For the alternative אֶל in place of the MT's אֶת־ in וְלֹא־נֶאֶמְנָ֖ה אֶת־אֵ֣ל רוּחֽוֹ see VTH vol. 4, 373 and de-Rossi, 53.

The Syr. understands רוּחֽוֹ as a dependent of the construct phrase אֶת־אֵ֣ל רוּחֽוֹ.[6] Nonetheless, the parallel with the previous line's לִבּ֑וֹ as the grammatical object is preferred.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 6 (Phrasal)

v. 6 – For the pseudo-coordination of יָ֝קֻ֗מוּ וִֽיסַפְּר֥וּ, see the grammar notes.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 7 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 7 – For the sense of כֶּסֶל, see the parallel with מִבְטָח "trust" in Job 31:24 (אִם־שַׂ֣מְתִּי זָהָ֣ב כִּסְלִ֑י וְ֝לַכֶּ֗תֶם אָמַ֥רְתִּי מִבְטַחִֽי).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 7 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 7 – For the sense of כֶּסֶל, see the parallel with מִבְטָח "trust" in Job 31:24 (אִם־שַׂ֣מְתִּי זָהָ֣ב כִּסְלִ֑י וְ֝לַכֶּ֗תֶם אָמַ֥רְתִּי מִבְטַחִֽי).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 7 (Phrasal)

v. 7 – As evident from the parallel in Job 31:24, כֶּסֶל, like מִבְטָח, should be understood as the verbal notion hoping >> hope, carried out by them, which is then placed in a metaphorical location בֵֽאלֹהִ֗ים.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 8 – This verse contains a unique collocation of niphal אמן with the preposition אֵת (though see the similar expression וְ֠עַתָּה אִם־יֶשְׁכֶ֨ם עֹשִׂ֜ים חֶ֧סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶ֛ת אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֖י הַגִּ֣ידוּ לִ֑י in Gen 24:49; cf. 32:11). For the intended sense, see the LXX's "with God" (μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ). The other ancient versions likewise reflect an interpretation of God as benefactor or goal of the faithfulness, and have apparently struggled with the appearance of אֵת for such a function (hence the alternative אֶל as noted in VTH vol. 4, 373 and de-Rossi, 53).[7] For modern translations' representation of the same result, see the DHH's "infiel a Dios," SG21's "n’était pas fidèle à Dieu," ESV "not faithful to God" (though see the KJV's "not faithful with God"). Or course, in clearer instances, such as with the verb הלך, the preposition אֵת can encode devotion (such as וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים in Gen 5:22; cf. BHRG §39.5). Indeed, van der Merwe et al. claim that while עִם and אֵת are "synonyms in the Pentateuch, in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, עִם became the default preposition to refer to all of the sense identified" for אֵת (BHRG 334, n. 7), which makes the instance in our psalm all the more remarkable.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 8 – This verse contains a unique collocation of niphal אמן with the preposition אֵת (though see the similar expression וְ֠עַתָּה אִם־יֶשְׁכֶ֨ם עֹשִׂ֜ים חֶ֧סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶ֛ת אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֖י הַגִּ֣ידוּ לִ֑י in Gen 24:49; cf. 32:11). For the intended sense, see the LXX's "with God" (μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ). The other ancient versions likewise reflect an interpretation of God as benefactor or goal of the faithfulness, and have apparently struggled with the appearance of אֵת for such a function (hence the alternative אֶל as noted in VTH vol. 4, 373 and de-Rossi, 53).[8] For modern translations' representation of the same result, see the DHH's "infiel a Dios," SG21's "n’était pas fidèle à Dieu," ESV "not faithful to God" (though see the KJV's "not faithful with God"). Or course, in clearer instances, such as with the verb הלך, the preposition אֵת can encode devotion (such as וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים in Gen 5:22; cf. BHRG §39.5). Indeed, van der Merwe et al. claim that while עִם and אֵת are "synonyms in the Pentateuch, in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, עִם became the default preposition to refer to all of the sense identified" for אֵת (BHRG 334, n. 7), which makes the instance in our psalm all the more remarkable.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Phrasal)

v. 8 – For the collocation סוֹרֵ֪ר וּמֹ֫רֶ֥ה, see also בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה (Deut 21:18); בְּנֵ֤נוּ זֶה֙ סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמֹרֶ֔ה (Deut 21:20) and וְלָעָ֤ם הַזֶּה֙ הָיָ֔ה לֵ֖ב סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֑ה (Jer 5:23).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Phrasal)

v. 8 – For discussion of אֵת following niphal אמן, see the lexical notes.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Verbal)

On the perdurative hiphil and hence the gloss ""keep,"" see Garr, ""hifʿil"" (forthcoming).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Verbal)

On the perdurative hiphil and hence the gloss ""keep,"" see Garr, ""hifʿil"" (forthcoming).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 8 (Verbal)

On the perdurative hiphil and hence the gloss ""keep,"" see Garr, ""hifʿil"" (forthcoming).

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 9 (Method:Grammar)

For the elided קֶשֶׁת after נשׁק, see the collocation in 1 Chr 12:2 and 2 Chr 17:17. As an entire construction, however, the first constituent, נוֹשְׁקֵ֥י, is in semantic apposition to the two following, רוֹמֵי־קָ֑שֶׁת (GKC §130e), to read "those armed of those shooters of a bow" >> "those armed [with a bow], those shooting [with] a bow" (cf. Delitzsch 1871, 365).

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 9 (Method:Grammar)

Rather than modifying the subject, the phrase(s) נוֹשְׁקֵ֥י רוֹמֵי־קָ֑שֶׁת could also be understood as adverbial, though this is unlikely in light of the ancient versions and the Masoretic accents.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 9 (Phrasal)

v. 9 – According to our preferred grammatical interpretation of this verse, the entity-name, בְּֽנֵי־אֶפְרַ֗יִם, are further described as armed with [a bow] and shooters of the bow, both instances of verbal notion-object. (For the elision of "bow" in the first instance, see the grammar notes.) Finally, the בְּֽנֵי־אֶפְרַ֗יִם are said to turn back in (בְּ as a temporal frame) a day of battle, i.e., a day marked by battle (entity-characteristic). Note that the definite reading of the construct phrase בְּי֣וֹם קְרָֽב as "the day of battle" is not licensed by the grammar or the parallel passages of Zech 14:3 and Job 38:23, both of which can be read as general characteristics of the day, rather than a specific battle (notwithstanding the TgPs's interpretive expansion here, which concludes with ביום סידרי קרבא "in the day of the battle lines"). This grammatical construal is not surprising, given that there is no agreement regarding the referent of the battle in question in the literature (though the lexical connections to v. 57 might indicate that the fall of Shiloh is in view).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 9 (Verbal)

On the participle נוֹשְׁקֵי, its aspect and collocation, see the grammar and lexical notes.

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

v. 9 (Verbal)

As discussed in the grammar and phrase-level notes, the construct chain רוֹמֵי־קָשֶׁת adjectivally describes this group of Ephraimites and their characteristic actions.

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

V. 10 (Method:Grammar)

Although probably fronted for poetic symmetry, the appearance of וּ֝בְתוֹרָת֗וֹ before its clause head (לָלֶֽכֶת) is one of the reasons Fassberg provides for considering Ps 78 Archaic/Early Biblical Hebrew, along with Pss 18 and 29 (2019, §8: צורת נסמך לפני מלת יחס "dependent form [placed] before its conjunction"). See also the focus-fronted הֲגַם־לֶ֭חֶם in הֲגַם־לֶ֭חֶם י֣וּכַל תֵּ֑ת (v. 20).

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 11 (Method:Grammar)

v. 11 – In light of parallels such as Mic 7:5 (כִּימֵ֥י צֵאתְךָ֖ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אַרְאֶ֖נּוּ נִפְלָאֽוֹת), we understand the relative clause to modify only נִפְלְאוֹתָ֗יו, limiting the syntax to only the second poetic line of the verse with the verb elided. Alternatively, qal ראה is found with עֲלִילָה in Ezek 14:22 (וּרְאִיתֶ֥ם אֶת־דַּרְכָּ֖ם וְאֶת־עֲלִֽילוֹתָ֑ם), so עֲלִילוֹתָ֑יו could also be included within the scope of the relative clause.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 11 (Verbal)

For the function of the wayyiqtol וַיִּשְׁכְּחוּ, see the note at v. 5.

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

v. 11 (Verbal)

From the past perfect in v. 11b until v. 37b the reference time is that of the Wilderness Wanderings, so past in relation to the preceding discourse. (It recounts the ancestors' failures in the wilderness, which is prior to the event of the Ephraimites' failure in v. 9. The latter dominates syntactically up to this point.) The discourse from vv. 12-37b recounts precisely what they ""forgot"" (v. 11).

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

V. 12 (Method:Grammar)

For the apposition between the two locative phrases (despite the elision of the preposition בְּ in the second constituent), see the ancient versions duplication of the preposition.[9] On the appositional analysis of the second constituent specifying a detail concerning the first, see DHH's formulation: en la región de Soan, que está en Egipto "in the region of Zoan, which is in Egypt."

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 12 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 12 – Zoan (modern day Tanis; cf. the LXX, Jerome, TgPs) is about 20km north of Rameses (modern day Qantir), a store city that the Israelites are said to have constructed in Exodus 1:11. As well as its proximity to the Israelite activity and plausible setting for much of their labor, there may be a few other motivating factors for the mention of Zoan both here and in v. 43. First, "it served as the seat of the Egyptian royal court from 1070-725 B.C.E" (Leuchter 2006, 21), so may have provided further rhetorical force for YHWH's superiority on a level of international relations beyond Israel in the north, with his special elective favor on Judah/David/Zion. Second, the alliteration and (almost) assonance between צֹעַן and both צִ֝יּ֗וֹן (v. 68) and צֹֽאן (v. 70) is more striking than if another location had been mentioned (Leuchter 2006, 22).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 12 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 12 – Despite the plural "fields" found in the Syr. (ܚ̈ܩܠܬܐ) and שדי in one medieval manuscript (see VTH, vol. 4, 373), the singular שְׂדֵה is intended, though seemingly to refer to the region, rather than a particular field as perhaps one would envisage "the field of Zoan."

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 12 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 12 – Despite the possibility of selecting a plural form (see, e.g., פְּלָאוֹת in Ps 119:129), the singular פֶּלֶא has been interpreted as a collective in all the ancient versions and also in the modern translations checked (cf. Exod 15:11; Isa 25:1; Ps 77:12; 88:11, 13; 89:6)—indeed, Exodus 15:11 (עֹ֥שֵׂה פֶֽלֶא) is probably the literary influence for this recounting of the same events.

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 13 (Method:Grammar)

For the alternative revocalization נֹד for the MT's נֵד, see the LXX's ἀσκὸν "wineskin," most plausibly from נאֹד/נֹד (see the same phenomenon in Ps 33:7).[10] Hebrew evidence for the reading נֹד is also found in the Babylonian manuscripts JTS 611 and 631.

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 13 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 13 – For the alternative revocalization נֹד for the MT's נֵד, see the LXX's ἀσκὸν "wineskin," most plausibly from נאֹד/נֹד (see the same phenomenon in Ps 33:7).[11]

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 14 (Phrasal)

v. 14 – Since הַ֝לַּ֗יְלָה is definite, the quantifier כָל informs the totality of the duration of the night, rather than distributive every night, just as we would expect in parallel with יוֹמָ֑ם (cf. the CEB's "all through the night").[12]

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 14 (Phrasal)

v. 14 – The construct chain א֣וֹר אֵֽשׁ communicates entity-source, i.e., the light produced by fire.

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 14 (Phrasal)

v. 14 – As a common noun, the article in בֶּעָנָ֣ן indicates the class reference "the cloud >> clouds," and can thus be rendered as generic and indefinite in English (see Bekins forthcoming).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 14 (Verbal)

Note that, where we have provided an elided verb, governed by the previous clause, when the preceding verb is a wayyiqtol, we have supplied a qatal (as here and vv. 27, 33, 42, 43, 46, 48, 61), and when the preceding verb is a yiqtol, we have supplied another yiqtol (as in vv. 45, 47).

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

V. 15 (Method:Grammar)

v. 15 – For the preferred adverbial reading of רַבָּה as "much, a lot," cf. Pss 62:3 and possibly 89:8 (cf. BDB 913; DCH vol. 7, 385; GKC §132h n.2; CEB, DHH, ELB, ESV, EÜ, Luther 2017, NASB, SG21, ZÜR).

The alternative understands רַבָּֽה as modifying כִּתְהֹמ֥וֹת, though the number disagreement is difficult, as there is no Hebrew manuscript evidence for the reading רַבּוֹת here. See the ancient versions for such an interpretation (cf. KJV, NJPS, RVC, TOB). For the alternative בִּתְהֹמוֹת for the MT's כִּתְהֹמ֥וֹת see the Hebrew manuscripts in VTH vol, 4: 374 and de-Rossi, vol. 4: 53. For the adverbial reading of the latter "as from among the abyss," see the LXX, Jerome's Hebr. and the Syr.[13]

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 15 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 15 – Due to the lack of object suffix on וַ֝יַּ֗שְׁקְ, instead of "give [them] water to drink," the simpler gloss "provide drinking water" has been preferred (cf. "serve drinks" [DCH, 548] for the similarly object-less וְהַשְׁקוֹת֙ in Esth 1:7). Notice the variation between Jerome's Hebr. potum dedit "he gave a drink" and the supplied object of the LXX and Syr.[14]

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 15 (Phrasal)

v. 15 – The article in בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר is probably identifiable to the reader as activated by the Exodus story, though it could also be generic class, as possibly the case of בַּצִּיָּֽה in v. 17.

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 15 (Verbal)

For the habitual reading of the yiqtol יְבַקַּ֣ע, see the TOB's ""Il fendait des rochers au désert."" Another possibility is modality of ability, since the agency of the splitting of the rock is unambiguously Moses in both Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, thus ""he could split rocks."" Modality of ability is picked up once again from הֲיוּכַל onwards in v. 19. A final possible interpretation is simply a prederite yiqtol, ""he split"" (see also vv. 26, 45, 47, 49, 50; cf. Ḥakham 1979, 45). Our preferred reading is the habitual aspect, supported by the plural ""rocks"" (cf. the use of piel, instead of qal, as in v. 13; Ḥakham 1979, 45; Penney 2023). Furthermore, as noted by Campbell (1979, 64-65), the splitting rocks for water is here presented as a positive event among the פֶלֶא which YHWH עָשָׂה (v. 12; cf. also v. 20's positive reflection), ""a gracious gift,"" so rhetorically and literarily independent from the single events of Exodus 17 or Numbers 20. In this case, ""The time interval during which the eventualities occur and their time reference relative to the present (speech time) are inferrable from the context"" (Khan, forthcoming, long yiqṭol, 3).

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

V. 16 (Method:Lexical Semantics)

v. 16 – The sense of נְהָרוֹת could be either simply fresh-water rivers or ocean currents (see, e.g., Ps 24:2; 89:26). The parallel term, נוֹזְלִים, also carries such ambiguity, as it is used later in the psalm to refer to the Egyptians' river(s) (v. 44), but also as the ocean currents in Exod 15:8, a text which seems highly influential on Ps 78. In the end, the gloss rivers has been preferred as thematically parallel to v. 44.

Code to display this note elsewhere


V. 16 (Phrasal)

v. 16 – For the probable Masoretic innovation on the article in כַּנְּהָר֣וֹת, see the discussion under v. 52 below. Even if the denotation of נְּהָרוֹת were the deep currents, apparently cosmically unique, these, too, lack the article when not preceded by a proclitic preposition (cf. Pss 74:15; 93:3; see further the discussion of Exodus 15 below).

Code to display this note elsewhere


v. 16 (Verbal)

The wayyiqtol has been judged to continue the tense-aspect-modality values of the preceding yiqtol, unless an obvious discourse-break is discerned, which arrives in v. 17, with the shift of grammatical subject.

Code to display this note elsewhere

Available diagrams for this note

V. 17 (Method:Grammar)

v. 17 – The LXX's finite "they provoked the Most High in the waterless place" (παρεπίκραναν τὸν ὕψιστον ἐν ἀνύδρῳ) for the MT's infinitive לַֽמְר֥וֹת "to rebel" is likely stylistic, as there is no Hebrew manuscript evidence for the finite מָרוּ.

Code to display this note elsewhere

... further results

  1. ↑ These read ܕܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ and דמן לקדמין, respectively; see also Symmachus' ἀναβλύσω προβλήματα ἀρχαῖα "I will gush forth ancient problems." The Syr. also, quite inexplicably, provides the conjunction and mirative particle ܗܐ ܓܝܪ ("for look"; Taylor 2020, 311) at the beginning of this verse.
  2. ↑ The LXX reads φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς. ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν καὶ ἔγνωμεν αὐτὰ "I will utter problems from of old. That which we heard, and we knew them..." (= Gall.).
  3. ↑ οὐκ ἐκρύβη ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῶν.
  4. ↑ ܕܠܐ ܢܟܣܐ ܡܢ ܒܢܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܐܠܐ ܠܕܪܐ ܐܚܪܝܐ ܢܫܬܥܐ.
  5. ↑ non sunt occultata a filiis eorum in generationem alteram.
  6. ↑ See ܕܪܐ ܕܠܐ ܐܬܩܢ ܠܒܗ "and did not believe the God of their spirit" (Taylor 2020, 313).
  7. ↑ Symmachus' πρός is ambiguous between these two senses.
  8. ↑ Symmachus' πρός is ambiguous between these two senses.
  9. ↑ The LXX reads ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἐν πεδίῳ Τάνεως, while Jerome's Hebr. reads in terra Aegypto in regione Taneos, and the Syr. ܒܐܪܥܐ ܕܡܨܪܝܢ ܘܒܚ̈ܩܠܬܐ ܕܨܥܢܢ.
  10. ↑ See also TgPss' זיקא, which is forced to provide the elliptical צרירין היך זיקא "bound like skin bottles" (Stec 2004, 151) and the Syr. ܒܙܩ̈ܐ, which is forced to provide the elliptical ܐܝܟ ܕܒܙܩ̈ܐ "as though in bottles" (Taylor 2020, 315).
  11. ↑ See also TgPss' זיקא, which is forced to provide the elliptical צרירין היך זיקא "bound like skin bottles" (Stec 2004, 151) and the Syr. ܒܙܩ̈ܐ, which is forced to provide the elliptical ܐܝܟ ܕܒܙܩ̈ܐ "as though in bottles" (Taylor 2020, 315).
  12. ↑ The ancient versions also unambiguously attest "all night," with the adverbial accusative ὅλην τὴν νύκτα, the ablative tota nocte, and proleptic ܗ in ܟܠܗ of ܘܟܠܗ ܠܠܝܐ.
  13. ↑ These read ὡς ἐν ἀβύσσῳ, quasi de abyssis, and ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܬܗܘܡܐ ܪܒܐ, respectively.
  14. ↑ These read καὶ ἐπότισεν αὐτοὺς and ܘܐܫܩܝ ܐܢܘܢ "he gave them drink."