Back to Psalm 14

Introduction

The phrase בְּשׁוּב יְהוָה שְׁבוּת עַמּוֹ is difficult, and translations vary; but there are 2 main rendering options that appear:

Option 1: "when YHWH returns the captivity/exile of his people"--meaning, to bring back the Israelites from captivity in Babylon

Favored by mostly older translations: LES, ASV, KJV, NCV, YLT, LSG, LBLA, Reina Valera; as well as the ancient translations

Option 2: "when YHWH restores the fortunes of his people"--meaning, to bring back to a blessed/favorable state in general

Favored by more modern translations: ESV, NRSV, RSV, CSB, GW, LEB, NIV84, NASB95, NIV, NLT, GNB, LBS, BFC, PDV, LPDPT, NVI

This phrase is important for understanding the whole Psalm because it helps direct our understanding of the purpose of the Psalm, as well as who "the wicked" described in the Psalm might be referring to. If option 1 is correct, "the wicked" in the Psalm probably refers to foreign oppressors, most likely in the context of exile or diaspora. But if option 2 is correct, it could refer to exile/diaspora OR any number of other situations in which the wicked were oppressing righteous people--and perhaps, "the wicked" could refer to Israel's own priesthood/leadership taking advantage of the people of Israel (see issue #3 in [Participants, and Meaning of Psalm 14:4]). Or, "the wicked" could be humanity in general, as supported by vv. 1-3.

A big question in determining the true meaning of this phrase is: does the noun שְׁבוּת come from the root שוב or שבה? If the latter (as ancient manuscripts largely attest), then the noun would read שְׁבִית (as it does in some of the other 24 instances of this phrase, שׁוב/שבה] שְׁבִית/שְׁבוּת], in the Old Testament). And if the former, then שְׁבוּת is correct, and we have שׁוּב שְׁבוּת as a cognate accusative. Was there an emendation by the Masoretes in the verb and/or noun of this phrase?

Adding to the complexity is the issue of the verb. In the over 25 instances of this phrase, 18 use the Qal form (שׁוב), while 6 use the hifil (הֵשִׁיב). But, qal שׁוב typically is intransitive, so how can it take an object (whether "captivity" OR "fortunes")? Does this indicate that the intended form of the verb was hifil? Particularly in yiqtol forms, the only difference between qal and hifil with this verb is that the latter uses a yod where the former uses a vav. Is it possible that emendation of the verb led to emendation of the noun as well, giving rise to שְׁבִית in some occurrences of this phrase in the OT?

Argument Maps


===
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
=== 
[The root is שָׁבָה, and thus '''Return/bring back the captivity of''' is the preferred understanding] #dispreferred
 <_ <The main addressees in vv.1-3>: The subjects of YHWH's examination are בְּנֵי־אָ֫דָ֥ם, which usually means all humankind in general; the idea of "all" humans being wicked is clear in these verses as well. Thus, the psalm is probably not intended to highlight one group or another, but rather all wicked humans. 
 + <Ancient translations>: LXX, Targum, Peshitta, and Vulgate all include the explicit idea of "captivity" or "exile" #dispreferred
  + [LXX: "return the captivity"; Targum: "bring back the exile"; Peshitta: "turns back the captivity": Jerome: "turned away the captivity"] #dispreferred
  <_ <Possible emendation>: The appearance of שְׁבִית, at least in some instances, might be due to a Masoretic emendation of וּ to י (Borger 1954 :A:) 
   + <Qere readings compared with Ketiv>: Q readings: 19x Qal without Q;  6x hifil without Q; 3x qal replaced by hifil; 0x hifil replaced by qal; in all places where, if one ignores the matres lectiones (in other words: "vav" replaced by "yod"), one can read Hiphil instead of Qal, a Hiphil form is recorded as Q; in 4 of the 6 places where the text offers Hiphil, one could read Qal in a similar way, but the Q readings are completely missing (Borger 1954 :A:)
    + <Transitivity issue of the phrase>: Masoretes probably replaced qal with hifil because the latter is typically transitive, and the former typically intransitive. The noun is acting as the object of the verb, so a transitive reading is necessary (Borger 1954 :A:)
 - <Uses in Amos and Hosea>: The noun appears in Amos 9:14 and Hosea 6:11, long before the Babylonian captivity (Kirkpatrick 1906 :C:)
  <_ [But, the majority of passages containing this noun are exilic and post-exilic (HALOT :L:)] 
 + <שׁ֣וּב שְׁב֣וּת in other verses>: In the vast majority of uses of this phrase (expressed in different person, number, and binyan), it means a captivity, whether current or future (TWOT :L:) #dispreferred
 - <Job 42:10>: "The expression has nothing to do with "captivity" or "exile" in the context of Job's restoration" (Bratcher and Reyburn 1991 :C:) 
 - <Sefire evidence, part 1>: The phrase "hsbw 'lhn sybt b(yt 'by)" ("the gods restored the fortunes of (my father's house)") in the Aramaic inscriptions suggest that שבות is the cognate accusative of שוב, as "hsbw sybt" in the Aramaic shows a cognate accusative relationship between the verb and noun  (Dahood 2008 :C:)
 - <Sefire evidence, part 2>: The context described in the Aramaic text is one of restoring property/households/fortunes, not captivity or exile  (Dahood 2008 :C:)

 
===
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
=== 
[The root is שׁוב, the noun שְׁבוּת is the cognate accusative of the verb שׁוּב, and thus "restore the fortunes of" is the preferred understanding] 
 + <Modern commentaries>:"...there is general support now for the rendering 'restores the fortunes (or well-being)', which is more comprehensive" (Kidner 1973 :C:).
 - <Ancient translations>: LXX, Targum, Peshitta, and Vulgate all include the explicit idea of "captivity/exile" #dispreferred 
  <_ <Possible emendation>: The appearance of שְׁבִית, at least in some instances, might be due to a Masoretic emendation of וּ to י (Borger 1954 :A:) 
    + <Qere readings compared with Ketiv>: Q readings: 19x Qal without Q;  6x hifil without Q; 3x qal replaced by hifil; 0x hifil replaced by qal; in all places where, if one ignores the matres lectiones (in other words: "vav" replaced by "yod"), one can read Hiphil instead of Qal, a Hiphil form is recorded as Q; in 4 of the 6 places where the text offers Hiphil, one could read Qal in a similar way, but the Q readings are completely missing (Borger 1954 :A:)
     + <Transitivity issue of the phrase>: Masoretes probably replaced qal with hifil because the latter is typically transitive, and the former typically intransitive. The noun is acting as the object of the verb, so a transitive reading is necessary (Borger 1954 :A:)
 + <שׁוּב שְׁבוּת in other verses, part 2>: This phrase is also used in the more general sense of "restoring fortunes" in Psalm 126: 1, 4; and Job 42:10 (McNeile 1942 :C:)
 + <Suits all contexts>: "restore fortunes" suits all the passages in which שׁוּב שְׁבוּת occurs (including the ones about captivity/exile); "captivity" does not (Kirkpatrick 1906 :C:)
 + <Paranomasia>: the soundplay that occurs in the phrase is another argument for the noun being a cognate accusative of the verb (HALOT :L:)
  + [If שָׁבָה were the underlying root for the cognate accusative noun and verb, we would expect שְׁבוֹת to appear as the infinitive construct verb, but שׁוּב appears instead (BDB :L:)]
 - <Intransitivity of שׁוּב in qal>: Of 9 senses of the qal verb, 8 (all other senses besides the one in this very phrase used ~30 times in the OT) are intransitive; we would expect the hifil form of the verb if there is a direct object (BDB :L:). Thus, for שׁוּב to have a cognate accusative isn't likely #dispreferred
 + <Sefire evidence, part 1>: The phrase "hsbw 'lhn sybt b(yt 'by)" ("the gods restored the fortunes of (my father's house)") in the Aramaic inscriptions suggest that שבות is the cognate accusative of שוב, as "hsbw sybt" in the Aramaic shows a cognate accusative relationship between the verb and noun  (Dahood 2008 :C:)
 + <Sefire evidence, part 2>: The context described in the Aramaic text is one of restoring property/households, not captivity or exile  (Dahood 2008 :C:)

Conclusion

Though most commentaries and lexica show the lack of uniformity about opinions on this phrase among scholars, it seems that the noun derives from the root שוב rather than שבה, and is a cognate accusative of שוב. Thus, option 2 is the best understanding of this phrase: "when YHWH restores His people/ restores the fortunes of his people". Most commentators agree that the idea of return from exile/captivity is more specific; it can be included in the larger, more general idea of restoration to blessing. Thus, the latter can include the former, but not the other way around¹. This is probably why most modern translations have opted for the more general idea of "restoring [fortunes]".
So what about the spelling variations of שְׁבִית/שְׁבוּת in the occurrences of this phrase througout the OT? The appearance of שְׁבִית in some instances might be explainable by a Masoretic emendation--the ו could have been changed to י in the verb to favor a hifil reading, which makes sense given the transitive nature of the hifil. Thus, an emended verb could give rise to an emended noun as object for sake of paranomasia.
The Qere and Ketiv readings don't shed much light on which version of the noun is the underlying one, as they intermix usage of שְׁבוּת and שְׁבִית throughout the ~30 instances of the phrase; but they DO shed light on the verb: the Q readings, where a change is made, always change from qal to hifil, never the other way around. Thus, we can infer that the qal verb is the original one, and if the noun is a cognate accusative of the verb, שְׁבוּת is the correct noun. With this understanding in mind, it seems the Psalm is targeting all humanity in general in their description of "the wicked", rather than one specific group such as foreign oppressors (which would be expected if the idea of captivity/exile was driving the composition of this Psalm). Given the lack of clear evidence for an exile context, it makes sense why modern translations opt for a phrase such as "restore the fortunes", which could cover a larger variety of situational contexts of authorship, as well as apply to a larger modern audience. This idea of "all" humanity being the wicked ones of the Psalm is supported by Paul's quoting of this Psalm in Romans 3 (see verses 9-12), in which he argues that all humanity is wicked and in need of God, both Jew and Gentile alike.

Research

Translations

Ancient

LXX: τίς δώσει ἐκ Σιων τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ Ισραηλ; ἐν τῷ ἐπιστρέψαι κύριον τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀγαλλιάσθω Ιακωβ καὶ εὐφρανθήτω Ισραηλ. Who will give from Zion the salvation of Israel? When the Lord returns the captivity of his people, let Jacob rejoice exceedingly, and let Israel be gladdened.
Targum: מן ירחיש מציון פורקנא דישראל כד יתיב יהוה גלות עמיה ירנן יעקב יחדי ישראל׃. Who will produce from Zion the redemption of Israel? When the Lord brings back the exile of his people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad.
Peshitta: ܡܢ ܢܬܠ ܡܢ ܨܗܝܘܢ ܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܠܐܝܣܪܝܠ ܡܐ ܕܡܗܦܟ ܡܪܝܐ ܫܒܝܬܐ ܕܥܡܗ. ܢܕܘܨ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܘܢܚܕܐ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ. Who will give salvation to Israel from Zion? When LORD JEHOVAH turns back the captivity of his people, Jacob will leap for joy and Israel will rejoice.
Jerome: quis dabit ex Sion salutare Israhel cum averterit Dominus captivitatem plebis suae exultabit Iacob et laetabitur Israhel. Who shall give out of Sion the salvation of Israel? when the Lord shall have turned away the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice and Israel shall be glad.

Modern

English Fortunes/blessings:

"restores the fortunes": ESV, NRSV, RSV, CSB, GW, LEB, NIV84
"restores his [captive] people": NASB95, NIV, NLT
"makes them prosperous again": GNB

Idea of captivity:

"returns the captivity": LES
"bringeth back the captivity": ASV, KJV
"bring them back": NCV
"turn back to a captivity": YLT

French

Fortunes/blessings:

"changera le sort": LBS, BFC
"changera la situation": PDV

Idea of captivity:

"ramènera les captifs": LSG

Spanish

Fortunes/blessings:

"restaure la fortuna": LPDPT
"restaure a su pueblo": NVI

Idea of captivity:

"restaure a su pueblo cautivo": LBLA
"haga volver a los cautivos": Reina Valera

Secondary Literature

Lexica

TWOT
שְׁבִית (šĕbît), שְׁבוּת (šĕbût). Captivity. These alternate spellings of what appears to be the same word occur altogether in the OT some thirty-five times. They are found intermixed in the Kethib-Qere readings. E.g., see KD on Ezk 16:53, where this word arises no less than five times. In Num 21:29 šĕbît refers to the captivity of the children of Moab, and here is used as a synonym for šĕbî “captivity.” In the other thirty-four cases where this word, šĕbît, appears it is used over and over in an idiomatic combination with the verb, šûb “return” to speak of a captivity, which is or will be terminated. Thus in Ps 85:1 [H 2] we read, “LORD … thou hast brought back (šûb) the captivity (šĕbît) of Jacob.” The succeeding verses show that this ending of the captivity is accompanied by (a) a turning away of God’s wrath, (b) a forgiveness for the sins of the past, and (c) a restoration to the former position of favor and blessing. [The phrase has been further studied however, by Dahood (Psalms III: in AB, p. 218) who cites the pertinent literature. He quotes the cognate Aramaic phrase in the Sefire Inscription to show that the Hebrew šĕbît and šĕbût do not come from šābâ, “take captive,” but are cognate accusatives of šûb “restore.” The phrase in the OT often means merely “restore the fortunes of’ (Job 42:10, NIV), though sometimes, of course this involves a restoration from captivity. Naturally this all included blessing, joy and the remission of God’s wrath. R.L.H.) It may be that the Hebrew writers felt that this šûb-šĕbût alliteration well portrayed the joyous proclamation of captivity ended. Surely there is a note of joy even in Jer 29:14 as the prophet of Judah’s doom looks ahead to see that day when šûb-šĕbît, Judah will have its days of captivity turned-away and be restored again to her Lord. So see Job 42:10.

BDB
†שְׁבִית S7622 TWOT2311d GK8654, 8669, שְׁבוּת S7622 TWOT2311d GK8654 n.f. id. (√ שׁבה 𝔊 Thes SS Preusschen xv (1895), 1 ff. Krae Ez 16:53; > √ שׁוב Ew (1852–3), 216 f.; § 165 b Ol 412, 417 Bö 464 Kue TTijdschr. vii. 519 ff. OortIb. xiv. 157 Schwally viii (1888), 200 al.; Kö. 1, 166 f., 474; ii. 2. § 329 i thinks deriv. of שׁבה and שׁוב are confused, cf. Ew 166 b);
2. in phr. restore the captivity of, acc. after שׁוּב, הֵשִׁיב, י׳ subj. [vb. Qal Dt 30:3 + 15 times, + Ez 16:53d ψ 126:1 (v. supr.); Hiph. Je 32:44 + 5 times, + Qal Kt, Hiph. Qr, Je 33:26 + 2 times]: a. of Isr. (or Judah) Ho 6:11 (𝔊 joins to 7:1, so as gloss, We Now), Zp 2:7; 3:20; Dt 30:3; Je 29:14; 30:3, 18 (שׁ׳ אָהֳלֵי יַעֲקֹב), 31:23; 32:44; 33:7(), 11 (שׁ׳ הָאָרֶץ), v 26 La 2:14 (subj. proph.), Ez 16:53 a, c, d (on text v. supr.), 39:25 Am 9:14; Jo 4:1 ψ 14:7 = 53:7, 85:2; 126:1 (v. supr.), v 4. b. of other nations Je 48:47 (cf. v 46), 49:6, 39; Ez 29:14 (cf. v 13). c. appar. in more gen. sense, restore fortunes of Sodom Ez 16:53 b (Krae, cf. foll.). d. restore fortunes of individuals, Jb 42:10.
שְׁבִי: S7628 TWOT2311a GK8660 n.m. Is 49:24 captivity, captives (coll.)
3. = captives (coll.): Ex 12:29 (J), Nu 31:12, 19, 26 (man and beast), Is 20:4 (|| גָּלוּת), 49:24, 25 Hb 1:9 + Ez 32:9 𝔊 al. (v. שֶׁבֶר ad fin.); appar. fs. Is 52:2 (but v. שָׁבִי); object of שָׁבָה
שָׁבָה: c. acc. cogn. שְׁבִי Ju 5:12 lead captive thy captives, cf. ψ 68:19 2 Ch 28:17

NIDOTTE
שְׁבוּת (šebût), fortunes (#8654) See שׁוּב #8740
שָׁבָה (šābâ), q. take captive; ni. be taken captive (#8647); nom. שְׁבִי (šebî), captivity, captives (#8660); שִׁבְיָה (šibyâ), captivity, captives (#8664); שְׁבִיָּה (šebîyâ), a captive (hapleg.; #8665); שְׁבִית (šebît), captivity (hapleg.; Num 21:29; #8669).
4. Two words often associated with שָׁבָה are שְׁבִית and שְׁבִית, both of which have been translated as captivity, reflecting a judgment about their etymological connection with שָׁבָה (cf. BDB, 986). These two words occur ca. 32×, almost in every case with the vb. שׁוּב, return, restore; in a phrase, restore the captivity (e.g., Ps 85:1 [2]; so KJV, NASB). However, scholarly consensus now leans to identifying the two words etymologically with שׁוּב, return, and thus translating them as “restoration” or “fortune”; thus, in Ps 85:1 [2], NIV, NRSV, and NASB’s margin have “restore the fortunes” (see Dahood, Psalms III, 218; Soggin, THAT 2:886–87; HALAT 1289–90).

HALOT
שְׁבוּת, שְׁבִית: according to Dalman Wb. (but without citation) it occurs in MHeb. and DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 216); SamP. variant Nu 31:19 ושביתכם wšēbetkimma; Dt 30:3 SamP. variant שובתך šūbåtåk from the root שוב; OArm. (Sefire) šybt development, restoration, in the expression hšbw ʾlhm šybt byt ʾby “the gods restored the fortunes of the house of my father (my dynasty) again” (Donner-Röllig Inschriften 224:24f; Jean-Hoftijzer Dictionnaire 293; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 1125: šybh; Noth Bibl. Land. 2: 189 and note 85; Fitzmyer Sef. 100f. 119f; Vogt Biblica 39 (1958) 274.
—1. a) for the spellings see Borger ZAW 66 (1954) 315f; see further Preuschen ZAW 15 (1895) 14; Gesenius-Buhl Handw., and Holladay The root šūbh 110: 17 times שְׁבוּת without Q; on שְׁבוּתֵיכֶם Zeph 3:20 see Gesenius-Kautzsch Gramm. §91 l, and Bauer-Leander Heb. 253b; שְׁבִית once without Q Ex 1653 (but with variant שְׁבוּת); שְׁבוּת has שְׁבִית as Q four times, and שְׁבִית has שְׁבוּת as Q six times; in view of the instances in Sefire שִׁיבַת Ps 126:1 is not to be questioned.
—b) questions raised by the Vrss. and linguistic problems: α) the Vrss. (Sept., Vulg., Tg., Pesh.) with a few exceptions (on which see Holladay loc. cit. 111f) offer as a translation something like “to go away into captivity”; that is to say they have without fail derived the sbst. from the vb. → שׁבה, which was a natural decision. The alternation of the Q and K שְׁבוּת/שְׁבִית shows that this was already suspected by the Massoretes. But the evidence from Sefire and Jb 42:10 contradicts this interpretation. So it appears to follow that the vb. שׁוּב in the qal and hif. is never used in conjunction with גָּלוּת; β) it has long been understood that the sbst. is an example of paranomasia with the vb. שׁוב (on which see E.L. Dietrich BZAW 40 (1925) 6; and now also Holladay loc. cit. 112-114; cf. THAT 2: 887) and as such it would have the expected form *שָׁבוּת (on which see Gesenius-Buhl Handw., and Holladay loc. cit. 113; cf. e.g. I רָמָה). The abbreviation to שְׁ׳ can perhaps be explained as a convergence of the idea of the vb. שׁבה with the sbst. שְׁבִית Nu 21:29, as mentioned earlier (α). If the sbst. שְׁבוּת/שְׁבִית belongs to the vb. שׁוב, the expression can be literally translated “to turn a turning”, but the exact meaning is still left open, on which see below 3 (SamP. variation Dt 30:3 שובתך; Gn 8:12 Nu 14:3 שובה šūba: (inf./sbst.).
—c) sf. שְׁבוּתְךָ, ־תֵךְ, ־תֵנוּ, ־תְכֶם, ־תָם, ־תְהֶן, ־תֵיכֶם (Zeph 3:20 see above a).
—d) for bibliography see THAT 2: 886f; out of this extensive list the following studies should now be mentioned: Preuschen ZAW 15 (1895) 1-74; E.L. Dietrich שוב שבות Die endzeitliche Wiederherstellung bei den Propheten (BZAW 40 (1925)); Baumann ZAW 47 (1929) 17-44; Fohrer Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (BZAW 99 (1967) 46); Holladay The root šūbh; see also Rudolph Hos. 143, and Jl.-Am.-Ob.-Jon. 78f; Beyerlin “Wir sind wie Träumende”: Studien zum 126. Psalm (SBS 89 (1978) 41f); Brache ZAW 97 (1985) 233-244.
—2. occurrences: a) 18 times with שׁוב qal; on the transitive use of the qal see under שׁוב (according to the Samaritan tradition שוב is here as usual intransitive): Dt 30:3 Jr 29:14 30:3, 18 31:23 48:47 Ezk 16:53 29:14 Hos 6:11 Am 9:14 Zeph 2:7 3:20 Ps 14:7/53:7 85:2 126:1 (שִׁיבַת on which see 1a), 4 Jb 42:10.
—b) with hif. (9 times) Jr 32:44 33:7, 11.26Q 49:6.39Q Ezk 39:25 Jl 4:1 Lam 2:14.
—c) observations: α) with the exception of Jb 42:10 and Lam 2:14 the sbj. is always יהוה (Ps 53:7 אֱלֹהִים); β) of the above citations only Jr 30:3, 18 31:23 and Ps 85:2 can be pre-exilic, while the genuineness of Hos 6:11 Am 9:14 is questionable. The majority of passages belong to the exilic and post-exilic period, which can be used to support the interpretation provided by the Vrss. (see above 1bα).
—3. the sense and meaning of the expression: a) to go into captivity, so the Vrss. and later commentators like Preuschen loc. cit. (see 1d); the arguments against this have been mentioned above (1bα).
—b) to free from imprisonment for debt, so Baumann loc. cit. (see 1d); and subsequently (in part) KBL: to put an end to imprisonment for debt, to turn one’s luck (for the better); the thesis advanced by Baumann restricts the action and leads to the amplification of the meaning in KBL (see c).
—c) to turn someone’s fortune, bring about change, so Dietrich loc. cit. and especially Fohrer loc. cit. (see 1d); Fohrer refers to Ezk 16:53, where שׁוּב שְׁ׳ stands in parallel to vs. 55 to mean “to restore the situation which prevailed earlier”. This amounts to restitutio in integrum, which is applicable to the circumstances surrounding the return of the exiles, so Beyerlin loc. cit. (see 1d). Rudolph loc. cit. prefers the rendering “to re-establish as it was”. Brache loc. cit., especially 244, comes to a similar result with the sense of restitutio ad integrum.
—4. cj. Ezk 16:53 pr. שְׁבִיתַיִךְ rd. with mss. (Sept., Pesh.) שְׁבִיתֵךְ, see Zimmerli Ezechiel 340; BHS. †

SDBH
שְׁבוּת H7622b Reinier de Blois (1) noun
שׁוב
(a) Move > Safe -- Well-Being
שׁוב שְׁבוּת ‎// ‏רחם = causative action by which deities restore the well-being of an individual or group -- to restore the fortunes (of someone)

Commentaries

Block 1997
With the exception of Num. 21:29, the twenty-five occurrences of šbwt/šbyt in the OT are always found in the context of this idiom. Being attested with a similar significance in eighth-century Aramaic,291 the idiom appears to have been common among the Northwest Semites. Whatever the etymology of šbwt/šbyt, the clearest indication of the common meaning of the idiom is provided by Job 42:10. Here šûb šĕbît involves the restoration of Job’s original good fortune, including the return of his standing in the community, his wealth, and his family. Jeremiah, who uses the phrase most frequently, offers the fullest information on its prophetic force. The idiom appears for the first time in Jer. 29:14, but its eight occurrences in chs. 30–33 suggest that these chapters represent an exposition of the idiom. Here, as in Ezek. 39:25, šûb šĕbût/šĕbît identifies a model of restoration according to which Yahweh reverses his judgment and restores a condition of well-being, which often includes a correction of the causes that led to the judgment.

Craigie 2004
The author of Ps 14 is not known. With respect to date, it is commonly argued that the psalm must be a postexilic composition, first on the basis of the mixed form, and second on the basis of v 7b, which could be translated: “when the Lord brings back the captivity of his people” (cf. AV), which in turn could be interpreted as a reference either to the Diaspora or the Exile. But the mixed form need not imply a late date and may even be indicative of pre-exilic composition (cf. Bennett, art. cit.), the Heb. expression in v 7b requires a more general translation (see Dahood, Psalms I, 82, with references to further literature), and the long history of the psalm implied by the textual variations (discussed above) might indicate considerable antiquity. Thus, although uncertainty remains, a pre-exilic date for the composition of the psalm is likely.
In the case of Ps 53, it can be argued (at least) that vv 5–6 have given the psalm a new genre, or, better, a variant of the genre suggested above for Ps 14. Ps 14 may be read as referring to evildoers in Israel (though v 7 certainly encourages one to think of Israel in a hostile world) and of God’s judgment of them. In Ps 53 the situation is that of Israel having been recently under siege and of the powerful intervention of God against foreigners who try to devour his people.

Kidner 1973
The older translations spoke here of bringing back Israel’s captivity, which would have made this verse a late supplement to David’s psalm. But there is general support now for the rendering restores the fortunes (or well-being), which is more comprehensive.

Jamieson and Brown 1997
Captivity—denotes any great evil.

Bratcher and Reyburn 1991
The Hebrew expression translated restores the fortunes sometimes has the more limited meaning of bringing back the people from exile (so BJ, NJB, TOB); here, however, it seems to be used in a more general sense (so most commentaries and translations). It is found also in 53:6; 85:1; 126:1, 4.

Barry et al. 2012
returns the fortunes of Refers to lifting someone up from a place of suffering or affliction to a place of prominence or wealth (Job 42:10). The phrase is often used in the Prophets to describe Israel’s return from the exile (Jer 30:18; Hos 6:11; Joel 3:1).

Keil and Delitzsch 1996
And in that Psalm [53] the announcement of judgment is applied to foreign enemies, a circumstance which has influenced some critics and led them astray in the interpretation of Ps. 14.
v. 5: Jahve avenges and thus delivers those whom He calls עַמִּי (My people); and who are here called דֹּור צַדִּיק, the generation of the righteous, in opposition to the corrupted humanity of the time (Ps. 12:8), as being conformed to the will of God and held together by a superior spirit to the prevailing spirit of the age. They are so called inasmuch as דֹּור passes over from the signification generatio to that of genus hominum here and also elsewhere, when it is not merely a temporal, but a moral notion; cf. 24:6; 83:15; 112:2, where it uniformly denotes the whole of the children of God who are in bondage in the world and longing for deliverance, not Israel collectively in antithesis to the Scythians and the heathen in general (Hitzig) [emphasis mine]
v. 7: This tristich sounds like a liturgical addition belonging to the time of the Exile, unless one is disposed to assign the whole Psalm to this period on account of it. For elsewhere in a similar connection, as e.g., in Ps. 126, שְׁוּב שְׁבוּת means to turn the captivity, or to bring back the captives. שׁוּב has here,—as in 126:4, Nah. 2:3 (followed by את), cf. Ezek. 47:7, the Kal being preferred to the Hiph. הֵשִׁיב (Jer. 32:44; 33:11) in favour of the alliteration with שְׁבוּת (from שָׁבָה to make any one a prisoner of war),—a transitive signification, which Hengstenberg (who interprets it: to turn back, to turn to the captivity, of God’s merciful visitation), vainly hesitates to admit. But Isa. 66:6, for instance, shows that the exiles also never looked for redemption anywhere but from Zion. Not as though they had thought, that Jahve still dwelt among the ruins of His habitation, which indeed on the contrary was become a ruin because He had forsaken it (as we read in Ezekiel); but the moment of His return to His people is also the moment when He entered again upon the occupation of His sanctuary, and His sanctuary, again appropriated by Jahve even before it was actually reared, is the spot whence issues the kindling of the divine judgment on the enemies of Israel, as well as the spot whence issues the brightness of the reverse side of this judgment, viz., the final deliverance, hence even during the Exile, Jerusalem is the point (the kibla) whither the eye of the praying captive was directed, Dan. 6:11. There would therefore be nothing strange if a psalm-writer belonging to the Exile should express his longing for deliverance in these words: who gives = oh that one would give = oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! But since שׁוב שׁבות also signifies metaphorically to turn misfortune, as in Job 42:10, Ezek. 16:53 (perhaps also in Ps. 85:2, cf. v. 5), inasmuch as the idea of שְׁבוּת has been generalised exactly like the German “Elend,” exile (Old High German elilenti = sojourn in another country, banishment, homelessness), therefore the inscribed לדוד cannot be called in question from this quarter. Even Hitzig renders: “if Jahve would but turn the misfortune of His people,” regarding this Psalm as composed by Jeremiah during the time the Scythians were in the land. If this rendering is possible, and that it is is undeniable, then we retain the inscription לדוד. And we do so the more readily, as Jeremiah’s supposed authorship rests upon a non-recognition of his reproductive character, and the history of the prophet’s times make no allusion to any incursion by the Scythians. The condition of the true people of God in the time of Absolom was really a שְׁבוּת in more than a figurative sense. But we require no such comparison with contemporary history, since in these closing words we have only the gathering up into a brief form of the view which prevails in other parts of the Psalm, viz., that the “righteous generation” in the midst of the world, and even of the so-called Israel, finds itself in a state of oppression, imprisonment, and bondage. If God will turn this condition of His people, who are His people indeed and of a truth, then shall Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad. It is the grateful duty of the redeemed to rejoice.—And how could they do otherwise!
14:7 does not necessitate our coming down to the time of the Exile.
The phrase (שְׁבִית) שׁוּב שְׁבוּת signifies properly to turn captivity, then in general to make an end of misery; also in German, elend, old High Germ. elilenti, originally signified another, foreign country (vid., Psalter, ii. 192), since an involuntary removal from one’s native land is regarded as the emblem of a lamentable condition. This phrase does not exactly stamp Job as the Mashal of the Israel of the Exile, but it favoured this interpretation. Now when Job was recovered, and doubly blessed by God, as is also promised to the Israel of the Exile, Isa. 61:7

NET Bible First Edition Notes 2006
Heb “turns with a turning [toward] his people.” The Hebrew term שְׁבוּת (shévut) is apparently a cognate accusative of שׁוּב (shuv).

McNeile 1942
The words may, but do not necessarily, imply that Israel was in captivity. The phrase is occasionally used more generally for ‘restoreth the fortunes of,’ bring out of any kind of trouble (cf. especially 126:1, 4; Job 42:10).

Jacobson and Tanner 2014
The restoration (šûḇ šeḇûaṯ) of God’s people may refer to the return from exile, but can also refer to a more general restoration of stability and prosperity to the people.
People of faith who read this psalm need to remember that its accusation is aimed as much inside the community of faith as it is at those who are outside.

Adeymeo 2006
Psalm 14 ends with a prayer that expresses a wish for the future of all the people of the Lord: May the Lord act soon to change the condition of the poor and oppressed (described in 14:4 and 14:6).

VanGemeren 2008
The date and authorship of this psalm are difficult to determine. Those who hold to its Davidic origin often explain v. 7 as a post-Davidic addition. Kidner, 1:80, considers the whole psalm as Davidic. Modern commentators generally posit a postexilic date; however, Craigie, 147, does not find the evidence convincing and believes that a preexilic date is likely. If the psalm is essentially Davidic, its original situation in David’s life cannot be determined with accuracy.

Futato 2009
“Restores his people” is used at times in reference to the return from captivity, but the meaning is broader: “Bring about a restoration” (NIDOTTE 4.58; see 53:6; 85:1; 126:1, 4); see TLOT 3.1314–1315 for a summary of opinions on this expression.
The phraseology “restore the fortunes” is characteristic of the prophets as they describe the era of restoration, when Israel, restored to the land, will again enjoy the blessings (“the fortunes”) of God (cf. Eze 16:53; Zep 2:7).

Steveson 2007
David writes this psalm for a different situation than that faced in Psalm 53. David is the author of this psalm, but we cannot set the circumstances for its writing with certainty.202 It clearly comes at a time when David has no influence to stop the oppression. This may be during his flight at Absalom’s rebellion. David sets forth the universal truths of the wickedness of man and the deliverance of the righteous.....we may locate it during the period before David becomes king over all Israel or during his flight during Absalom’s rebellion.
David longs for the “salvation” of the nation, the completed deliverance from their oppressors. When this happens, the compassionate Lord will bring back “the captivity” of the people, delivering them from their oppressors and restoring the fullness of the land. While there was undoubtedly a local fulfillment in David’s mind, ultimate fulfillment will come during the millennial kingdom, when the Lord rules over the earth. Then the nation shall rejoice in the Lord, v. 7.

References

1. Kidner 1973, Jamieson and Brown 1997, Bratcher and Reyburn 1991, McNeile 1942, Jacobson and Tanner 2014, Futato 2009 14:7 Approved

The Meaning of שׁוּב and שְׁבוּת in Ps 14:7

Contents

Introduction

Argument Maps

Conclusion

Research

Translations

Ancient

Modern

Secondary Literature

Lexica

Commentaries

References