Psalm 78/Notes/Phrasal.vv. 67-70.887990

vv. 67-68, 70 – v. 67's second line reads וּֽבְשֵׁ֥בֶט אֶ֝פְרַ֗יִם לֹ֣א בָחָֽר, immediately followed by וַ֭יִּבְחַר אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט יְהוּדָ֑ה in v. 68a.^[1] Unfortunately, the verb בחר takes a בְּ complement about as often as אֵת, such that "a clear distinction of the two types of use is not possible."^[2] Nevertheless, it may be that בְּ constructions involve a more complete process of observation, scrutiny and examination (Bekins 2014, 146), such that the rejection of Ephraim and selection of David (vv. 67, 70) were not taken lightly, whereas the use of אֵת in v. 68 indicates the simple choice based on YHWH's love for Zion (v. 68b).

↑ Among the ancient versions, the LXX and Jerome (Hebr.) provide no distinction between these two constructions; TgPs follows the MT isomorphically, while the Syr. varies between the verbs ܐܬܪܥܝ "to consider" in the first instance and ܓܒܐ "to choose" in the second. Such an interpretation seems purely contextual, however, since the translator renders the construction וַ֭יִּבְחַר בְּדָוִ֣ד in v. 70 with ܓܒܐ "to choose." Here again the LXX and Jerome's Hebr. simply provide the accusative case for בְּדָוִ֣ד and TgPs contains the preposition ב.
↑ Eine eindeutige Scheidüng der beiden Verwendungsarten will nicht gelingen (Jenni 1992, 256); cf. Bekins: "the alternation between bāḥar bǝ- and bāḥar + ACC does not produce a meaningful semantic contrast within a single dialect" (2014, 146 n. 13).

[1] Among the ancient versions, the LXX and Jerome (Hebr.) provide no distinction between these two constructions; TgPs follows the MT isomorphically, while the Syr. varies between the verbs ܐܬܪܥܝ "to consider" in the first instance and ܓܒܐ "to choose" in the second. Such an interpretation seems purely contextual, however, since the translator renders the construction וַ֭יִּבְחַר בְּדָוִ֣ד in v. 70 with ܓܒܐ "to choose." Here again the LXX and Jerome's Hebr. simply provide the accusative case for בְּדָוִ֣ד and TgPs contains the preposition ב.

[2] Eine eindeutige Scheidüng der beiden Verwendungsarten will nicht gelingen (Jenni 1992, 256); cf. Bekins: "the alternation between bāḥar bǝ- and bāḥar + ACC does not produce a meaningful semantic contrast within a single dialect" (2014, 146 n. 13).

[1]

[2]