The Meaning of לְהָרַע in Ps 15:4c

Back to Psalm 15

Introduction

In Psalm 15:4c, לְ֝הָרַ֗ע is difficult to translate, particularly because, as Dahood notes, "the more common Biblical Hebrew usage would require the phrase to be translated "he swore to do wrong, and he did not retract" (Dahood, 302). This translation would be problematic given that the subject in this verse is presented in the Psalm as the individual (or group) who is the answer to the questions of the first verse: “O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill?" This individual walks with integrity, works righteousness and speaks truth in his heart (v. 2), and in verse 3 is said to not do “evil (רָעָ֑ה) to his fellow". This individual, then, would not be expected to swear to do "wrong and not retract" (Dahood, 302). Both text critical and semantic issues concerning the phrase לְ֝הָרַ֗ע, 'to do wrong', require consideration when addressing this issue.

Argument Map(s)

Text Critical Question: Should לְ֝הָרַ֗ע, 'to do wrong/harm' (from vb. רעע), be retained as per the MT or emended to read 'neighbour/friend' (from n. רֵעַ)?

 
===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[to harm (לְ֝הָרַ֗ע)]: Masoretic vocalization should be retained and the word should be interpreted as "to harm" (without textual emendation): "he swears (even) to (his own) hurt/harm/evil and does not change".
 + <Modern Versions>: NIV, ESV, NET, CEV, JPS/1985, NLT, GNT, NRSV, NEB/REB, dictionaries (BDB, HALOT), and commentaries also support this reading.
  + [Lectio difficilior]: The more difficult reading is often preferred.
  - [Some modern translations emend]:Douay-Rheims translates this as, "he that sweareth to his neighbour, and  deceiveth not".#dispreferred
 + <Ancient Support>: Aq, Rashi, Kimchi, NJPS, Jer, give translations such as, "who swears to his detriment, but does not violate it" (cf. Ziegler, 2008, 42, fn. 78).
  - [Ancient counter]: LXX, Jer, Syr, give translations such as, "who swears to his fellow and does not renege" (NETS, 553, translated  by Albert Pietersma).#dispreferred
   - [Scholarly support]: Alter (2007), Barre (1984), Briggs (1906), Jacobson (2014) give translations such as, "when he vows to his fellow man, he does not revoke it" (Alter, 2007).#dispreferred
 + <Context>:
  + [Background of Lev. 5:4]: Lev. 5:4, potentially a background for Psalm 15:4c, translates 'לְ֝הָרַ֗ע' as 'to harm'.
   + [Mp & Mm link Lev. 5:4 with Ps. 15:4c]: The Mp notes that 'לְ֝הָרַ֗ע' occurs 6 times & the Mm lists Lev. 5:4 and Psalm 15:4 as references
  + [Community behavior theme]: A reading of the MT says that oath keeping is important for members of the community, even if costly.
   - [Emended reading focuses on community behavior]: the emended reading 'to a neighbor' more explicitly reinforces the HB and ANE emphasis on the importance of oath keeping in community.#dispreferred
 - <Emend to 'neighbour'>: 'he swears to his neighbour and does not change’#dispreferred
  + [Coherence with v.3]: Fulfilling an oath to his neighbor does not contradict the earlier portrayals, including that "he does no harm/evil to his neighbor" (v. 3).#dispreferred 
   - [Semantic readings of לְ֝הָרַ֗ע]: Some semantic readings of לְ֝הָרַ֗ע (such as: harm to self or harm to others - see the semantic options below) also do not contradict v.3 or the rest of the psalm.

Semantic Question: how should the word לְ֝הָרַ֗ע be read in the context of Psalm 15?

• harm to self
• harm to others
• moral evil

 
===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Self-harm (לְ֝הָרַ֗ע)]: "swears to do harm to his own detriment, and does not change"
 + <Textual support>:  Dictionaries (BDB, HALOT) and commentaries support this reading.
  + [Modern versions]:NIV, ESV, NET, CEV, JPS/1985, NLT, GNT, NRSV, NEB/REB, translate לְ֝הָרַ֗ע as 'self harm' as in, "who swears to his own hurt and does not change" (ESV).
  + [Ancient versions]:Jer, Tg, translate לְ֝הָרַ֗ע as 'self harm' as in, "who will swear to do harm to himself and does not change" (Tg).
   <_ [Some ancient versions emend text]: LXX, Jer, Syr, give translations such as, "who swears to his fellow and does not renege" (NETS, 553, translated  by Albert Pietersma).#dispreferred
  + [Ancient and Modern Commentaries]: Avishur (1976-1977), Boloje and Groenewald (2016), Buttenwieser (1969), Gruber, (2004), Lussier (1948), Yershalmi (1989), Michel (1960), Perowne (1966) translate לְ֝הָרַ֗ע as 'self harm' as in, "who swears to his own hurt and changeth not" (Perowne, 1966).
   <_ [Some ancient and modern commentaries disagree]: Goldingay (2006) translates as, "he has sworn to bring calamity and does not change it". Ibn Ezra (Strickman 2009) translates לְ֝הָרַ֗ע as self harm in this passage but as harm to another in Lev. 5:4 (2009).#dispreferred 
 + <Coherence with v.3>:
  + [Textual coherence]: Coherence requires that לְ֝הָרַ֗ע not contradict v.3, which disqualifies someone from someone dwelling on the LORD's holy mountain who wrongs/harms (same root as v.4) a neighbour. Reading לְ֝הָרַ֗ע as referring to self-harm does not contradict v.3.
  - [Defense Harm]: לְ֝הָרַ֗ע could refer to harm of an enemy rather than harm of a neighbor and thus not contradict v.3.#dispreferred
  - [Judicial Harm]: לְ֝הָרַ֗ע could refer to a punishment in which it would be just to harm another.#dispreferred
    + [No contrast specified]: No contrasted situation or group of people is mentioned in relation to not harming others.
 + <Lev. 5:4 parallel>: Lev. 5:4 shares lexical and thematic features with Ps 15:4c 
"Or when a person utters with his lips an oath to bad or good purpose"
  + [Harm/good]: Milgrom (1998) views the merism as referring to harm/good rather than moral/immoral. Milgrom, along with Rashi and the Talmud, read לְ֝הָרַ֗ע in Lev. 5:4 as harm to self rather than harm to another.
   + [''Ašam'' offering]: Milgrom (1998) chooses this reading for Lev. 5:4, pointing out the topic of oaths that harm others is addressed later in the chapter in vv. 21-26.
   - [Ibn Ezra disagrees]: Ibn Ezra takes Lev. 5:4 as harm to another (Milgrom, 1998).#dispreferred
   - [All of Lev. 5:4 is not necessarily the background]: Lev 5:4 is explicitly about rash oaths, which are not mentioned in Ps. 15:4. It is unclear how much of the Lev context informs Ps 15:4.#dispreferred
 - <Harm to others>: "swears to do harm (to others), and does not change"#dispreferred
  + [King's role to defend and judge]: In 1 Sam 8:19 the desired role of the king is to fight (and presumably harm) the enemies of the Lord, and Israel, and also to judge. 2 Sam 4:9-12 is an instance when King David, in a judicial role, makes and carries out an oath to punish (harm) the murderers of Ish-bosheth.#dispreferred
  + [Jephthah fulfills his vow]: In Judges 11, Jephthah keeps his oath, even though it causes harm to another.#dispreferred
   - [Jephtah's vow fulfillment may be read negatively]: "Many scholars draw a parallel between the negative moral implications of Saul’s willingness to put his son to death in this story (1 Sam 14) and the episode of Jephtah’s vow (Judges 11), in which Jephtah also attributed undue importance to adherence to ritual over moral behavior, resulting in his child’s death" (Ziegler, 2008, 168, fn. 46).
  + [Ibn Ezra (Milgrom, 1998) interpretation]: Ibn Ezra interprets Lev. 5:4 as referring to an oath against another.#dispreferred
   - [Milgrom (1998) chooses a different reading]: With Rashi, the Talmud and others Milgrom reads לְ֝הָרַ֗ע as self-harm. Because harm to others is discussed later in the chapter, he assumes Lev. 5:4 refers to a different kind of harm.
   - [Ibn Ezra (Strickman, 2009) reads Ps. 15:4 as self-harm]
  + [Modern Commentaries]: Goldingay (2006) translates as, "he has sworn to bring calamity and does not change it".#dispreferred
 - <Moral Evil>: "he swore not to do wrong and he did not retract" Dahood (1954); "he has sworn to do no wrong and does not falter" Craigie (1983)#dispreferred 
  + [Lamed read in a 'separative sense' (Craigie, 1983)]: Dahood notes that the lamed is used "in the sense as '''from''' in Ps. 40:11 and 84:12" (Dahood, 1954). Craigie follows Dahood's interpretation.#dispreferred
   + [Ugaritic texts]: "A wider knowledge of Hebrew grammar, made possible by the Ugaritic texts, renders any textual change needless, for the Ras Shamra tablets provide clear examples of the preposition lamed "to" with the meaning 'from'". (Dahood, 1954)
   - [Lamed read "to" a person]: Kottsieper (TDOT) translates v.4c as "who swears '''to''' the wicked without changing it".
   - [Lamed read as a verbal adjunct (result)]: This produces the meaning "(with the result of) doing harm (to himself or others)".
  + [Solves the issue of textual coherence between vv.3-4]: Dahood commends "the consonance of the translation with the idea expressed in ν 3b 'sworn to do no wrong'" (Dahood, 1954).#dispreferred

Conclusion

The MT rendering of Psalm 15:4c is our preferred base text for translation. It has been viewed as problematic (Dahood, 1954) because it can seem to describe one who can dwell with the LORD as one who swears to do wrong and does not change; this reading does not follow from previous verses. The LXX, Sym, Jer, and Syr translations, as well as some modern commentaries, read leharaʿ as leharêaʿ resulting in translations such as “he swears to his fellow and does not renege” (NETS, 533). Their reading is consistent with Psalm 15’s emphasis on conduct to others and avoids the apparent problems stated above. However, the semantic possibilities of the MT vocalization of leharaʿ include readings that also avoid these problems in a way which is consistent with the Psalm, as well as other OT passages such as Lev. 5:4, and is followed by ancient and modern translations and commentaries. For these reasons the MT vocalization (lectio dificilior) is preferred here.

How then is swearing to evil/harm a quality of one who can dwell with the LORD? Of the three semantic possibilities for leharaʿ that address the apparent difficulty, reading leharaʿ as self-harm is preferable. Dahood’s framing of the problem assumes an understanding of leharaʿ as moral evil rather than self-harm. Clearly one who swore to do moral evil and would not retreat would not be commended in this Psalm. Dahood (and Craigie’s) solution of reading the lamed “in the separative sense” (Craigie, 1983, 150) solves the problem but does so by negating the initial proposition: “he swears to not do wrong…”. As the lamed can be otherwise read as “to” ("who swears to the wicked without changing it" Kottsieper, 2004, 322), or as a verbal adjunct ('he swears with the result of evil/harm'), and because there are other viable semantic possibilities which solve the issue without negating the proposition and contradicting the plain meaning of the clause, this reading is not preferred.

BDB and HALOT support the possibility of reading leharaʿ as harm rather than moral evil. But, is this harm to others or self-harm? The former is biblically supportable, based on passages in which the LORD, kings, and others justly harm individuals or groups, and is also found in some translations and commentaries. However, the latter is preferred, particularly because it retains textual coherence with v.3b: “he does no raʿa (evil/harm) to his neighbor”. Also, reading leharaʿ as self harm is supported by the oath discussion in Lev 5:4 and is prevalent in ancient and modern translations. Further, it plausibly portrays an important quality of one who can dwell with the LORD as one who fulfills his oath even in suffering/self-harm, and in doing so remains aligned with the biblical view of oath taking as a serious and binding speech act (Ziegler, 2008, 17), reflective of the promises of the LORD. For these reasons, the best reading of Ps. 15:4c is “he swears to (his own) hurt and does not change”.

Research

Translation

Ancient

• LXX: ὁ ὀμνύων τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἀθετῶν·
  • "he who swears to his fellow and does not renege"
• Aq.: τον κακώσαι...
  • "...you hurt him..."
• Th.: τον κακώσαι...
  • "...you hurt him..."
• Sym.: ό όμόσας εταίρος είναι, και μη άλλαγείς
  • "the same partner is and does not change"
• Jer. psalterium gall.: Qui jurat proximo suo, et non decipit
  • "he who swears to his neighbor, and does not deceive"
• Jer. juxta hebraicum: iurat ut se adfligat et non mutat
  • "he swears to harm (damage) and does not change
• Syr.: ܝܡܐ ܠܚܒܪܗ ܘܠܐ ܡܕܓܠ
  • "he takes an oath with his friend and does not deceive" For MT לְ֝הָרַ֗ע to his harm P has to his friend (cf. LXX,τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ).
  • The difference is due to confusion with regard to vocalization of the Hebrew word. For MT לְ֝הָרַ֗ע to his harm the Greek and Syriac translators understood τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦto his friend
• Tg.: לאבאשא לגרמיה ולא משלחף/יפרג
  • "who will swear to do harm to himself and does not change"

• Mp. 6 times - לְ֝הָרַ֗ע
• Mm. 227 (Weil's Massorah Gedolah)
  • Gen 31:7; Lev 5:4; Jer 4:22; 25:29; Zech 8:14; Ps 15:4

Modern

• NIV: who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind
• NLT: and keep their promises even when it hurts
• ESV: who swears to his own hurt and does not change
• NASB: He takes an oath to his own detriment, and does not change
• GNT: They always do what they promise, no matter how much it may cost
• NET: He makes firm commitments and does not renege on his promise
• KJV: He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not
• DBT: who, if he have sworn to his own hurt, changeth it not
• DRB: He that sweareth to his neighbour, and deceiveth not
• CPDV: He who swears to his neighbor and does not deceive
• NJPS: who stands by his oath even to his hurt
• TOV: Se fait-il tort dans un serment, il ne se rétracte pas (Gr.: S'il jure à son prochain)
• NBS: il ne se rétracte pas, s'il fait un serment à son préjudice
• BDS: Il tient toujours ses serments même s’il doit en pâtir
• BFC: S'il a fait un serment qui lui cause du tort, il ne change pas ce qu'il a dit
• Luther 1984: wer seinen Eid hält, auch wenn es ihm schadet
• RVR95: el que aun jurando en perjuicio propio, no por eso cambia
• NVI: al que comple lo prometido aunque salga perjudicado
• DHH: el que cumple sus promesas aunque le vaya mal

Secondary Literature

• BDB: do an injury, hurt, swear לְהָרַע, = to one’s hurt, ψ 15:4
• HALOT: to inflict harm, injury; to inflict harm; to do evil, treat badly (cf. Isa 11:9; 41:23; 65:25; Zeph 1:12; Ps 15:4)
• DCH: without object but with preposition: do harm to, deal harshly with, deal badly with, bring trouble upon. Only one that notes the collocation רָעַע and שָׁבַע he swears to (his own) harm
• Zorell: personae cui malum infertur "the person to whom the evil is inflicted" (782b)
• SDBH: = causative action by which humans or deities bring suffering or disaster upon humans, often as the result of wrong behavior -- to do harm (to someone); to make suffer; to deal, treat harshly; to afflict

• Alter: When he vows to his fellow man, he does not revoke it - "When he vows to his fellow man, / he does not revoke it. The Masoretic text here is problematic. It appears to read: “he vows to do evil / and will not revoke it,” which is hardly an attribute one would attach to the moral person. But three ancient translations — the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Peshitta—read here instead of lehara, “to do evil,” lere'eihu, “to his fellow man,” which merely reverses the order of the consonants. It is the sort of error a scribe could have easily made." (130)
• Avishur: He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not (124)
• Barre: "Read leharêa, "to his neighbor", instead of the MT's lehära, "to do harm, evil". The change is based on the LXX, Symmachus and the Syriac. It seems that the Masoretes did not correctly vocalize the consonants because of the rare occurrence of the article after a preposition (cf GKC § 55 η, 112). Probably under the influence of Lev ν 4, the consonants were read as a hiphil infinitive construct. On the other hand, the Septuagint not only recognized the presence of the article, but also rightly interpreted it as denoting possession (cf R J Williams, Hebrew Syntax An Outline [Toronto/Buffalo, 1976], § 86, ρ 19). The Septuagint's understanding of the word is strongly supported by Ezek xxn 12 where we find the crimes of "taking bribes" and "charging interest" are explicitly related to taking advantage of a "neighbor". (210)
• Boloje and Groenewald: who makes an oath to his/her hurt and does not change (137)
• Buttenwieser: Even though he has pledged himself to his own hurt (202)
• Craigie: He has sworn to do no wrong and does not falter - ("to do no wrong": the translation follows Dahood (CBQ 16 [1954] 302) and Psalms I, 84, taking lamedh in the separative sense; but the form remains curious and the sense of the passage is uncertain" (150 fn 4.a.). "The seventh condition indicates not merely a determination to do good, but the swearing of a solemn oath to avoid doing wrong, and the accompanying determination never to falter or waver in the performance of that oath" (152).
• Dahood: he swore not to do wrong and he did not retract - "More common biblical Hebrew usage would require that the phrase... be translated "he swore to do wrong, and he did not retract." But this translation is explicitly ruled out by the preceding verse which states that the blameless man "does no wrong to his friend and brings no reproach on his neighbor." It is not strange, then, that the textual history of this phrase reveals that a number of emendations has been offered in order to relieve the Psalmist of intolerable inconsistency. But a wider knowledge of Hebrew grammar, made possible by the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, renders any textual change needless, for the Ras Shamra tablets provide clear examples of the preposition l "to" with the meaning "from."... The eminently good sense which emerges from this solution, the consonance of the translation with the idea expressed in ν 3b, the use of the preposition min "from" with the verb [נִשְׁבַּע] (Is 54,9), and the use of [לֹֽ] in the sense of "from" in Pss 40,11; 84,12 make it highly probable that the MT preserves the true reading, which is to be rendered "he swore not to do wrong, and he did not retract." (302)
• Fraade: (7) be careful to fulfill (Deut 23:24), any binding oath which a person will take upon himself (8) to do a thing (commandment) from the Torah, even at the price of death, he shall not redeem it vacat Whatever a person (9) ]tak[es upon himself (by an oath) to tu]r[n ]from the To[rah, even at the price of death, he shall not fulfill it.(10) (The Damascus Document) - "16:7: will take upon himself. Qimron 1992: 41 suggests replacing יקום (qal) of the CD manuscript with יקים (hiphʿil), more commonly used for undertaking oaths and vows, the letters yod and waw being easily mistaken for one another by scribes. 16:8: from the Torah. The word Torah here, and throughout the Damascus Document, is not clearly defined. It stands for divine (and Mosaic) instruction, in written and oral form, but not yet a fully closed (nor fully open) corpus (canon) of sacred texts—e.g. what was to become the Pentateuch. Compare VanderKam 1998, whose “open canon” is more open than I suggest. 16:8: even at the price of death. On the harm that might come to someone as a result of an oath, see Ps 15:4". (80-81)
• Goldingay: he has sworn to bring calamity and does not change it - "The last colon then takes further the duty of a responsible member of the community to see that people do not get away with wrongdoing. It would be tempting (e.g.) to deal softly with one’s friends, but the person Yhwh welcomes is one who vows to bring trouble and does so. W. A. Irwin calls this “astonishing nonsense,” but the psalm assumes that just as it is wrong to bring about calamity for someone who does not deserve it (v. 3), so it is wrong to act with unilateral leniency when someone does not deserve it (cf. 7:4 [5])." (222, 226)
• Ibn Ezra: He that sweareth, to his own hurt and changeth not - "He swears to harm his body, that is, he swears to fast. Fasting weakens the flesh." (111)
• Jacobson, Rolf A.: who makes a vow and does not recant - "The verse is corrupt. We read lehāraʿ here, with LXX’s ponēreuomenos, assuming that the occurrence later in the verse has been misplaced, since it makes little sense there (“he has sworn to do harm). The verse might literally be rendered, “he is despised in his eyes and he is rejected.” But in whose eyes? In God’s eyes? This reading (cf. Gerstenberg, Psalms: Part 1, p. 87) is syntactically awkward. In the psalmist’s own eyes? The idea of the odium sui is both anachronistic and awkward in the context, which focuses on how one treats the neighbor. The LXX reading is preferred. (192, 1037)
• Kapelrud: der som sverger med hensyn til det onde, uten å gjøre forandring "he who swears with regard to evil, without making a change" (43)
• Lussier: "The true servant of God will keep his oaths and vows without modification even though he may lose by it" (408)
• Michel: Schwört er (sich selbst) zum Schaden, so ändert er's nicht "Hier deutlich wieder dieselbe Zeitstufe, das verneinte impf. gibt wieder die Nicht-Folge an." (130)
• Milgrom: "to good or bad purpose. lehāra 'ô lehêtîb, lit., "to do harm or good," either (1) to oneself as for instance "I shall eat" or "I shall not eat"; "I shall sleep" or "I shall not sleep" (Rashi, based on b. Šebu. 27a; cf. b. Nazir 62b) or (2) to another (Ibn Ezra). Nevertheless, this expression is probably a merism meaning "anything" (see Gen 24:5; 31:24; Num 24:18; 2 Sam 14:17, 20 [Cassuto 1964: 62]; Isa 41:23), confirmed by the following explanatory clause: "whatever a man may utter in an oath." In any event, Ibn Ezra's view must be rejected; the oath that harm's another person is the subject of the 'ašām offering of vv 21-26. With Rashi (and the Talmud), the oath must be restricted to anything that the oath taker promises to do or not do for himself" (p.300)
• Miller: "Its meaning is quite uncertain. Most probably it is to be understood as indicating either one who swears an oath even to his own harm and will not break it or one who swears an oath to his neighbor... and will not break it. In either case the requirement has to do with keeping oaths. Some interpreters would understand the colon as in fact a bicolon and perhaps with missing words (so Kraus). That seems less likely in this case. There is no textual evidence for a haplography, although it is possible that one occurred at an early stage of the transmission of the text. The meter and syllabic length of the four words correspond to the meter and length of the two following cola as well as the three Id' sentences of v. 3." (fn. 18 "For discussion of these alternatives see the commentaries. LXX, followed by the Peshitta and the Gallican Psalter of Jerome, translates 'to his neighbor'. In his Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Jerome translated the Hebrew: iurat ut se adfligat et non mutat, i.e. understanding the Hebrew according to the first alternative indicated above.") (p. 267)
• Perowne: (Who) sweareth to (his own) hurt, and changeth not - "לְהָרַע... The Chald. rightly, "so as to afflict himself." The word is inf. Hiph. of רָעַע... and there is a reference no doubt, to the formula in Lev. v.4... i.e. let the consequences be what they will (to himself of course), whether that sweareth unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his hinderence." See another similar instance of combined readings in xxix.1." (1:188-189)
• Rashi: HE TAKES AN OATH TO HURT himself, BUT HE DOES NOT CHANGE his oath - A fortiori he does not change it concerning something which is not to his disadvantage. (fn: The two alternative interpretations derive from the ambiguity of the Heb. preposition 'al. With reference to the second interpretation cf. Mekilta at Ex. 23:8 and Sifre Deut. at Deut. 16:19. (p. 225)
• Ridderbos: "4c.5a.b enthalten wieder drei negative Aussagen; diese stehen jedoch nicht sämtlich im Perfekt. Wae ihren Inhalt betrifft, so besteht eine deutliche Verwandtschaft zwischen v. 5a und v. 5b: in beiden Aussagen wird vor einem zu starken Verlangen nach Besitz gewarnt. V. 4c dürfte eine Warnung vor dem Eidbruch enthalten. Auch dem Eidbruch liegt häufig ein zu starkes Verlangen nach Besitz zugrunde. So können wir v. 4o.6a.b folgendermaßen umschreiben: man darf am Besitz nicht so sehr hängen, daß man um seinetwillen eidbrüchig wird, v. 4c, das Gut seines Nächsten an sich zieht, v. 5a, das Recht verletzt, v. 5b." (156)
• Yerushalmi: He that swears and (even) to his own hurt does not change (it) - "He that swears even to his own hurt": for instance, a man swore an oath that he would fast, which thins the flesh. "And he does not change"-he does not fail to fulfill his oath. Or else he pledged money for charity and he does not change his mind. (154-56)
• Ziegler: "In the Bible, the oath is a formal assertion of truth or declaration of intent which cannot be breached without incurring severe consequences. The Bible provides legal sanctions for the violation of oaths in certain instances (Lev. 5). In addition, the biblical oath seems to possess substantial power which, on occasion, results in the application of divine sanctions upon the violator of his oath." (p. 3). "Features of Ancient Near Eastern oaths which will prove to be important for scholarly perceptions of the biblical oaths include the appeal to a divine authority to witness the oath or punish its violator, the curses attending the oath, as well as the generally apprehensive attitude towards the oath. Similarities between the Bible and ancient Near Eastern cultures have also been perceived in the actual formulae of oath-taking, and the rites, gestures or ceremonies which accompanied the oath." (pp. 10-11) "...oaths do not appear arbitrarily in biblical narratives. Rather, oaths are a unique speech-act which can powerfully affect the biblical narrative and underscore its primary ideas." (p. 17) "Psalm 15 poses a similar question (Psalm 15:1–4): O Lord, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends, nor take up a reproach against their neighbors; in whose eyes the wicked are despised, but who honor those who fear the Lord; who stand by their oath even to their hurt. The phrase נשבע להרע ולא ימר may be translated in various other ways: “Who swears to his detriment but does not violate it,” “Who swears to the wicked but does not violate it.” In either case, in both Psalms, the integrity of one’s oath-taking is a key component in the creation of a persona worthy to be in close proximity to the divine." (fns. 77-80: "77 Briggs, Psalms, p. 114, following the Septuagint, Syriac and Vulgate, changes the vowels but not the consonants from MT, reading the word להרע , not as bad (rah), but as friend, or neighbor (re’ah), thereby rendering the verse, “Who swears to his friend and does not change.”78 AV; Revised Version; NJPS; Rashi; Kimhi. This is in essence the meaning of NRSV’s translation, although this seems to me to be a preferable literal translation. Kottsieper, שבע , (p. 322). Anderson, Psalms, (p. 139), notes that the general meaning of Psalms 15:4 is that a righteous man honors his oath.") (p. 42) "David uses his oath to express confidence in his own enduring value for human life, and his concurrent reverence for the institution of kingship. In this way, David breaks the connection between violence and power, recognizing that there is an alternative to violence in obtaining and maintaining power. Taken together, these components begin to form a composite picture of a man of integrity, a potential king suited to establish a dynastic monarchy which does not rely on tyranny and bloodshed in obtaining or maintaining power." (p. 206)

References

15:4Approved

Alter, Robert. 2007. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. Norton.

Avishur, Yizchak. 1976-1977. Psalm XV - A Liturgial or Ethical Psalm? Avishur, Yitzhak. Dor le Dor 5/3: 124-127

Barre, Lloyd M. 1984. Recovering the Literary Structure of Psalm XV. Vetus Testamentum 34.2: 207-211.

Boloje, Blessing Onoriode, and Alphonso Groenewald. 2016. Accessing Yahweh’s presence: Ethical implications of the entrance liturgy of Psalm 15. Stellenbosch Theological Journal, 2:131–152

Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Briggs. 1906. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Volume 1. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Buttenwieser, Moses. 1969. The Psalms Chronologically Treated with a New Translation. New York, KTAV.

de Claissé-Walford, N., Jacobson, R. A., & Tanner, B. L. 2014. The book of Psalms. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Craigie, Peter C. 1983. Psalms 1 - 50. Word Biblical Commentary 19. Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher.

Dahood, M. J. (1954). A NOTE ON PSALM 15, 4 (14, 4). The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 16(3), 302-302.

Dongmo, Folifack. 2013. Le Psaume 15, OTE 26/1: 86-110.

Fraade, Steven D. 2022. The Damascus Document. Oxford Commentary on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford University Press.

Goldingay, J. 2006. Psalms: Psalm 1–41. Grand Rapids, Baker.

Gruber, Mayer. 2004. Rashi's Commentary on Psalms. Brill Reference Library of Judaism 18, Brill.

Kapelrud, Arvid S. 1965. Salme 15, En Paktsfornyelsessalme. Norsk Theologisk Tidsskrift 66.1:39-46.

Kottsieper, I. 2004. עשב, in G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H. Fabry (eds.), TDOT, XIV, D. W. Stott (tr.), Grand Rapids: Eerdsman, 311–336.

Kselman, John S. 1987. Psalm 3: A Structural and Literary Study. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.4:572-580.

Lussier, Ernest, 1948. The New Latin Psalter an exegetical commentary VII Psalms 14 and 15. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 10.4:408-412.

Michel, Diethem. 1960. Temporaund Satzellung in den Psalmen. Abhandungen zur Evangeischen Theologie Band 1. Bouvier u. Co. Germany.

Milgrom, Jacob. 1998. Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Yale University Press.

Miller, Patrick D. 2000. Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays, Sheffield Academic Press.

Perowne, J, J. Stewart. 1966. The Book of Psalms A New Translation with Introduction and Notes Explanatory and Critical." Vol. I. Reprinted from the fourth edition and revised. Zondervan.

Ridderbos, Nic H. 1972. Die Psalmen Stilistische Verfahren und Aufbau Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ps 1—41.BZAW 118, De Gruyter.

Strickman, Norman H. 2009. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the First Book of Psalms: Chapters 1-41. Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History. Academic Studies Press.

Zenger, Erich. 2007. Geld as Lebensmittel? Über di Wertung Reichtums Im Psalter (Psalmen 15. 49. 112), in Gott und Geld: Herausgegeben von Martin Ebner (eds. Paul D. Hanson et al; JBTh 21; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

Yerushalmi, Shmuel. 1989. The Book of Tehillim. Me'am Lo'ez. Psalms I Chapters 1-32. Translated and adapted by Dr. Zvi Faier. Israel, Moznaim .

Ziegler, Yael, 2008 Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Brill.