The Text and Meaning of Ps. 100:3

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

Back to Psalm 100.

Exegetical Issues from Psalm 100:

Introduction[ ]

The traditional Hebrew text of Psalm 100:3 reads:

דְּע֗וּ כִּֽי־יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים
הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ ולא (וְל֣וֹ) אֲנַ֑חְנוּ
עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ׃

In this verse there is a Ketiv and Qere issue,[1] where the Ketiv (the consonantal text) has the word לֹא, and the Qere (the 'read' text according to tradition) has the word לוֹ. Phonetically these words are identical, but they reflect completely different meanings in the text. The differences can be illustrated in the following two translation alternatives:

1. Ketiv (לֹא): It is He who made us, and not we ourselves; (NASB, see also LXX, Peshitta, NKJV, KJV, Darby, Webster, Geneva, Coverdale, Douay-Rheims)
2. Qere (לוֹ): It is he who made us, and we are his; (ESV, see also Aquila, Jerome, Targum, NIV, Berean, TLV, WEB, ASV, JPS, NLT, CSB, Holman, LSV, YLT, REB, GNT, ISV, NET, Alter, CEV)

Ketiv/Qere are resolved by looking first at the textual evidence (especially ancient versions), followed by analysing which reading is more coherent and plausible within its context.[2] In this case the textual evidence is inconclusive,[3] so the primary focus in the following argument maps is related to coherence and plausibility within the context. First the arguments for and against the Ketiv (לֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "not we/us") will be presented, followed by the Qere (לוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "we are his").[4]

Argument Maps[ ]

Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us"[ ]

Some argue for preserving the Ketiv (לֹא) as the most original text. This leads, for example, to the translation, "It is He who made us, and not we ourselves (NASB). 


===
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
=== 
[Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us", following the Ketiv. The text therefore emphasises God's creative work over and against 'self-creation'. #dispreferred
 + <Ketiv/Qere Precedent>: There are a few clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where the Ketiv לֹא is probably the more plausible text (Gordis 1971, 150-154 :M: Ognibeni 1989, 232 :M:). #dispreferred
  + [Prov. 26:2]: כַּצִּפּ֣וֹר לָ֭נוּד כַּדְּר֣וֹר לָע֑וּף כֵּ֥ן קִֽלְלַ֥ת חִ֝נָּ֗ם  תָבֹֽא׃ Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight. #dispreferred
  + [Job 41:4]:לא־(לֽוֹ)־אַחֲרִ֥ישׁ בַּדָּ֑יו וּדְבַר־גְּ֝בוּר֗וֹת וְחִ֣ין עֶרְכּֽוֹ׃ "I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame. #dispreferred
 + <Ancient Witness>: LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). #dispreferred
  <_ <Disagreement>: Ancient versions, however, are not unanimous. Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).
 + <Precedent for Self-creation>: Polemics against 'self-creation' are present elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, for example in Ezek. 29:3. #dispreferred 
  + [Ezek. 29:3]: דַּבֵּ֨ר וְאָמַרְתָּ֜ כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה הִנְנִ֤י עָלֶ֨יךָ֙ פַּרְעֹ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרַ֔יִם הַתַּנִּים֙ הַגָּד֔וֹל הָרֹבֵ֖ץ בְּת֣וֹךְ יְאֹרָ֑יו אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָמַ֛ר לִ֥י יְאֹרִ֖י וַאֲנִ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽנִי׃ speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD:
	 “Behold, I am against you,
		Pharaoh king of Egypt,
	 the great dragon that lies
		in the midst of his streams,
	 that says, ‘My Nile is my own;
		I made it for myself.’  #dispreferred
 - <Lack of Indication in Context>: There is no suggestion of self-creation in the context of Ps. 100 (Howard 1997, 131-132 :M:). Instead of focusing on YHWH's creation vs. Israel or humanity's self-creation, the focus is more broadly on worshipping YHWH as the one true God. 
 + <Hebrew Usage>: Reading the Ketiv (לֹא) corresponds with common Hebrew usage.  #dispreferred
  + <Default Usage of לֹא>: In Ps 100:3, לֹא appears at the beginning of the clause, its default/expected position when negating a clause. #dispreferred
   <_ <Possible Explanation for Ketiv>: The position of לו/לא at the beginning of the clause would explain why a later scribe might have mistaken the fronted prepositional phrase לוֹ for the negative particle לֹא. 
  + <Syntactic Precedent>: There are at least two other places that have similar phrasing to the Ketiv reading here (Ognibeni 1989, 191 :M:), using the לֹא + pronoun (e.g. אֲנִי/אֲנַחְנוּ) following a verb to make a contrast with the subject of that verb (i.e. "you/he did X, and not I/we"). #dispreferred
   + [Job 15:6]: יַרְשִֽׁיעֲךָ֣ פִ֣יךָ וְלֹא־אָ֑נִי וּ֝שְׂפָתֶ֗יךָ יַעֲנוּ־בָֽךְ׃ Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; your own lips testify against you.#dispreferred
   + [Job 34:33]:  הַֽמֵעִמְּךָ֬ יְשַׁלְמֶ֨נָּה כִּֽי־מָאַ֗סְתָּ כִּי־אַתָּ֣ה תִבְחַ֣ר וְלֹא־אָ֑נִי וּֽמַה־יָדַ֥עְתָּ דַבֵּֽר׃ Will he then make repayment to suit you, because you reject it? For you must choose, and not I; therefore declare what you know.#dispreferred
 - <Incoherence with Next Clause>: This interpretation renders the following clause incoherent, leaving  עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ ("his people and the sheep of his pasture") without a clear antecedent for an implied subject.


Argument Mapn0Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּThe earlier form of the text reads וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us", following the Ketiv. The text therefore emphasises God's creative work over and against 'self-creation'. n1Prov. 26:2כַּצִּפּ֣וֹר לָ֭נוּד כַּדְּר֣וֹר לָע֑וּף כֵּ֥ן קִֽלְלַ֥ת חִ֝נָּ֗ם תָבֹֽא׃ Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight. n6Ketiv/Qere PrecedentThere are a few clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where the Ketiv לֹא is probably the more plausible text (Gordis 1971, 150-154 🄼 Ognibeni 1989, 232 🄼). n1->n6n2Job 41:4לא־(לֽוֹ)־אַחֲרִ֥ישׁ בַּדָּ֑יו וּדְבַר־גְּ֝בוּר֗וֹת וְחִ֣ין עֶרְכּֽוֹ׃ "I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame. n2->n6n3Ezek. 29:3דַּבֵּ֨ר וְאָמַרְתָּ֜ כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה הִנְנִ֤י עָלֶ֨יךָ֙ פַּרְעֹ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרַ֔יִם הַתַּנִּים֙ הַגָּד֔וֹל הָרֹבֵ֖ץ בְּת֣וֹךְ יְאֹרָ֑יו אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָמַ֛ר לִ֥י יְאֹרִ֖י וַאֲנִ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽנִי׃ speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his streams, that says, ‘My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.’  n9Precedent for Self-creationPolemics against 'self-creation' are present elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, for example in Ezek. 29:3. n3->n9n4Job 15:6יַרְשִֽׁיעֲךָ֣ פִ֣יךָ וְלֹא־אָ֑נִי וּ֝שְׂפָתֶ֗יךָ יַעֲנוּ־בָֽךְ׃ Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; your own lips testify against you.n14Syntactic PrecedentThere are at least two other places that have similar phrasing to the Ketiv reading here (Ognibeni 1989, 191 🄼), using the לֹא + pronoun (e.g. אֲנִי/אֲנַחְנוּ) following a verb to make a contrast with the subject of that verb (i.e. "you/he did X, and not I/we"). n4->n14n5Job 34:33הַֽמֵעִמְּךָ֬ יְשַׁלְמֶ֨נָּה כִּֽי־מָאַ֗סְתָּ כִּי־אַתָּ֣ה תִבְחַ֣ר וְלֹא־אָ֑נִי וּֽמַה־יָדַ֥עְתָּ דַבֵּֽר׃ Will he then make repayment to suit you, because you reject it? For you must choose, and not I; therefore declare what you know.n5->n14n6->n0n7Ancient WitnessLXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). n7->n0n8DisagreementAncient versions, however, are not unanimous. Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).n8->n7n9->n0n10Lack of Indication in ContextThere is no suggestion of self-creation in the context of Ps. 100 (Howard 1997, 131-132 🄼). Instead of focusing on YHWH's creation vs. Israel or humanity's self-creation, the focus is more broadly on worshipping YHWH as the one true God. n10->n0n11Hebrew UsageReading the Ketiv (לֹא) corresponds with common Hebrew usage. n11->n0n12Default Usage of לֹאIn Ps 100:3, לֹא appears at the beginning of the clause, its default/expected position when negating a clause. n12->n11n13Possible Explanation for KetivThe position of לו/לא at the beginning of the clause would explain why a later scribe might have mistaken the fronted prepositional phrase לוֹ for the negative particle לֹא. n13->n12n14->n11n15Incoherence with Next ClauseThis interpretation renders the following clause incoherent, leaving עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ ("his people and the sheep of his pasture") without a clear antecedent for an implied subject. n15->n0


Qere: וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "and we are his"[ ]

Some argue for reading the Qere (לוֹ) as the most original text. This leads, for example, to the translation, "It is he who made us, and we are his (ESV). 


===
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
=== 
[Qere: וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "and we are his (lit. to him)", following the Qere.
 + <Ketiv/Qere Precedent>: There are multiple clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where only the Qere לוֹ is plausible (BDB :L:; Gordis 1971, 150-154 :M: Ognibeni 1989, 232 :M:). 
  + [2 Sam. 16:18]: וַיֹּ֣אמֶר חוּשַׁי֮ אֶל־אַבְשָׁלֹם֒ לֹ֕א כִּי֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר בָּחַ֧ר יְהוָ֛ה וְהָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה וְכָל־אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לא (ל֥וֹ) אֶהְיֶ֖ה וְאִתּ֥וֹ אֵשֵֽׁב׃
And Hushai said to Absalom, “No, for whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be (לוֹ), and with him I will remain. 
  + [Isa. 49:5]: וְעַתָּ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה יֹצְרִ֤י מִבֶּ֙טֶן֙ לְעֶ֣בֶד ל֔וֹ לְשׁוֹבֵ֤ב יַֽעֲקֹב֙ אֵלָ֔יו וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לא (ל֣וֹ) יֵאָסֵ֑ף וְאֶכָּבֵד֙ בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה וֵאלֹהַ֖י הָיָ֥ה עֻזִּֽי׃ And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him (לוֹ) for I am honoured in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength:
  + [Qere preferred]: See also Lev. 11:21; Isa. 63:9; Ezra 4:2; and probably also Ex. 21:8; 1 Sam. 2:3; 2 Kgs. 9:10; Jb. 13:15. 
 + <Ancient Witness>: Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).
  <_ <Disagreement>: Ancient versions, however, are not unanimous. LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). #dispreferred 
 + <Coherence>: Reading the Qere (לוֹ) creates maximum coherence on discourse, syntactic, and semantic levels. 
  + <Discourse/Word Order Coherence>: The non-default fronting of the prepositional phrase לוֹ corresponds to the non-default fronting of the pronoun הֽוּא in the preceding clause הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ, as well as the casus pendens + resumptive pronoun construction יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים in v. 3a. 
  + <Syntactic Coherence>: Reading the Qere (לוֹ) creates maximum coherence with the words that follow after אֲנַ֑חְנוּ, wherein the words עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ ("his people and the sheep of his pasture") function simply as a logical expansion of לוֹ אֲנַ֑חְנוּ ("we are his"), with אֲנַחְנוּ ("we") serving as the clear antecedent for the implied/elided subject for עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ (Delitzsch 1877, 106 :C: Briggs 1906, 310 :C:). 
  + <Semantic Coherence>: The words of Ps. 100:3 "take the so-called covenant formula, which traditionally is a general expression of the special position of Israel in contrast to the nations, and now places it also on the lips of the nations as a confession of their relationship to YHWH... here there is a universalising of the 'covenant formula'" (Zenger 2005, 496 :C:). The stated basis for this expansion of Israel's covenant formula are the preceding words הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ ("He made us"), with "us" referring to Israel and all nations. Therefore, since YHWH is the creator of both Israel and all nations, the proper response (according to the language of the covenant formula) is to declare covenantal commitment to YHWH with the words וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "We are his"/"We belong to him". 
    + <Ps 100:3 and the Covenant Formula>: Ps 100:3 uses and expands the covenant formula "YHWH is our God, we are his people". 
     + [Covenant Formula]: "YHWH is God/is our God, we are his people" (see e.g. Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27).
     + [Covenant Formula in Ps 100:3]: יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים "YHWH, He is God". עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ "(We are) his people and the flock of his pasture". 
 + <Parallel Verses>: Ps. 95:7 contains a very similar expression that expresses a similar meaning. In Ps. 95:7 there is a statement about being God's people and flock, preceded by a statement about covenantal relationship to God (ה֤וּא אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ "he is our God"). So too in Ps. 100:3 there is a statement about being God's people and flock, preceded by a statement about covenantal relationship to God (לוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "We are his") (Hossfeld-Zenger 2005, 493 :C: Delitzsch 1877, 106 :C: ). See also the close parallel of Ps. 79:13. 
  + [Ps. 95:7]:  כִּ֘י ה֤וּא אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וַאֲנַ֤חְנוּ עַ֣ם מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ וְצֹ֣אן יָד֑וֹ For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand. 
 + <Hebrew Usage>: Reading the Qere (לוֹ) corresponds with common Hebrew usage.  
  + <Common Usage of ל-preposition>: According to the Qere (לוֹ) the ל has a possessive sense, in this case expressing relational commitment/belonging. This is a very common usage of the ל preposition (IBHS §11.2.10 :G:), as seen for example in Song 2:16 and 6:3 (compare also 1 Kgs. 20:3; 1 Sam. 16:18). 
  + <Common Phrasing>: The usage of fronted ל + pronominal suffix followed by a first-person pronoun to express devotion/belonging/dedication is found in at least two other places (compare also Song 2:16). 
   + [1 Kings 20:4]: וַיַּ֤עַן מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר כִּדְבָרְךָ֖ אֲדֹנִ֣י הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ לְךָ֥ אֲנִ֖י וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר־לִֽי׃ And the king of Israel answered, “As you say, my lord, O king, I am yours, and all that I have.”
   + [Ps. 119:94]: לְֽךָ־אֲ֭נִי הוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נִי כִּ֖י פִקּוּדֶ֣יךָ דָרָֽשְׁתִּי׃ I am yours; save me, for I have sought your precepts. 
 - <Tautology>: Reading "we are his" here is tautological insofar as the same idea is repeated multiple times in the following clause: עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ (...his people and the sheep of his pasture) (Tate 1998, 534 :C:). #dispreferred
  <_ <Poetic Repetition>: In Hebrew poetry, especially throughout the psalms, seemingly 'tautological' repetition is very common as a poetic and rhetorical device (Watson 2005, 275-282 :M:).


Argument Mapn0Qere: וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּThe earlier form of the text reads וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "and we are his (lit. to him)", following the Qere.n12 Sam. 16:18וַיֹּ֣אמֶר חוּשַׁי֮ אֶל־אַבְשָׁלֹם֒ לֹ֕א כִּי֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר בָּחַ֧ר יְהוָ֛ה וְהָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה וְכָל־אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לא (ל֥וֹ) אֶהְיֶ֖ה וְאִתּ֥וֹ אֵשֵֽׁב׃ And Hushai said to Absalom, “No, for whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be (לוֹ), and with him I will remain. n9Ketiv/Qere PrecedentThere are multiple clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where only the Qere לוֹ is plausible (BDB 🄻; Gordis 1971, 150-154 🄼 Ognibeni 1989, 232 🄼). n1->n9n2Isa. 49:5וְעַתָּ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה יֹצְרִ֤י מִבֶּ֙טֶן֙ לְעֶ֣בֶד ל֔וֹ לְשׁוֹבֵ֤ב יַֽעֲקֹב֙ אֵלָ֔יו וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לא (ל֣וֹ) יֵאָסֵ֑ף וְאֶכָּבֵד֙ בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה וֵאלֹהַ֖י הָיָ֥ה עֻזִּֽי׃ And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him (לוֹ) for I am honoured in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength:n2->n9n3Qere preferredSee also Lev. 11:21; Isa. 63:9; Ezra 4:2; and probably also Ex. 21:8; 1 Sam. 2:3; 2 Kgs. 9:10; Jb. 13:15. n3->n9n4Covenant Formula"YHWH is God/is our God, we are his people" (see e.g. Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27).n16Ps 100:3 and the Covenant FormulaPs 100:3 uses and expands the covenant formula "YHWH is our God, we are his people". n4->n16n5Covenant Formula in Ps 100:3יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים "YHWH, He is God". עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ "(We are) his people and the flock of his pasture". n5->n16n6Ps. 95:7כִּ֘י ה֤וּא אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ וַאֲנַ֤חְנוּ עַ֣ם מַ֭רְעִיתוֹ וְצֹ֣אן יָד֑וֹ For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand. n17Parallel VersesPs. 95:7 contains a very similar expression that expresses a similar meaning. In Ps. 95:7 there is a statement about being God's people and flock, preceded by a statement about covenantal relationship to God (ה֤וּא אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ "he is our God"). So too in Ps. 100:3 there is a statement about being God's people and flock, preceded by a statement about covenantal relationship to God (לוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "We are his") (Hossfeld-Zenger 2005, 493 🄲 Delitzsch 1877, 106 🄲 ). See also the close parallel of Ps. 79:13. n6->n17n71 Kings 20:4וַיַּ֤עַן מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר כִּדְבָרְךָ֖ אֲדֹנִ֣י הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ לְךָ֥ אֲנִ֖י וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר־לִֽי׃ And the king of Israel answered, “As you say, my lord, O king, I am yours, and all that I have.”n20Common PhrasingThe usage of fronted ל + pronominal suffix followed by a first-person pronoun to express devotion/belonging/dedication is found in at least two other places (compare also Song 2:16). n7->n20n8Ps. 119:94לְֽךָ־אֲ֭נִי הוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נִי כִּ֖י פִקּוּדֶ֣יךָ דָרָֽשְׁתִּי׃ I am yours; save me, for I have sought your precepts. n8->n20n9->n0n10Ancient WitnessAquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).n10->n0n11DisagreementAncient versions, however, are not unanimous. LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). n11->n10n12CoherenceReading the Qere (לוֹ) creates maximum coherence on discourse, syntactic, and semantic levels. n12->n0n13Discourse/Word Order CoherenceThe non-default fronting of the prepositional phrase לוֹ corresponds to the non-default fronting of the pronoun הֽוּא in the preceding clause הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ, as well as the casus pendens + resumptive pronoun construction יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים in v. 3a. n13->n12n14Syntactic CoherenceReading the Qere (לוֹ) creates maximum coherence with the words that follow after אֲנַ֑חְנוּ, wherein the words עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ ("his people and the sheep of his pasture") function simply as a logical expansion of לוֹ אֲנַ֑חְנוּ ("we are his"), with אֲנַחְנוּ ("we") serving as the clear antecedent for the implied/elided subject for עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ (Delitzsch 1877, 106 🄲 Briggs 1906, 310 🄲). n14->n12n15Semantic CoherenceThe words of Ps. 100:3 "take the so-called covenant formula, which traditionally is a general expression of the special position of Israel in contrast to the nations, and now places it also on the lips of the nations as a confession of their relationship to YHWH... here there is a universalising of the 'covenant formula'" (Zenger 2005, 496 🄲). The stated basis for this expansion of Israel's covenant formula are the preceding words הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ ("He made us"), with "us" referring to Israel and all nations. Therefore, since YHWH is the creator of both Israel and all nations, the proper response (according to the language of the covenant formula) is to declare covenantal commitment to YHWH with the words וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "We are his"/"We belong to him". n15->n12n16->n15n17->n0n18Hebrew UsageReading the Qere (לוֹ) corresponds with common Hebrew usage. n18->n0n19Common Usage of ל-prepositionAccording to the Qere (לוֹ) the ל has a possessive sense, in this case expressing relational commitment/belonging. This is a very common usage of the ל preposition (IBHS §11.2.10 🄶), as seen for example in Song 2:16 and 6:3 (compare also 1 Kgs. 20:3; 1 Sam. 16:18). n19->n18n20->n18n21TautologyReading "we are his" here is tautological insofar as the same idea is repeated multiple times in the following clause: עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ (...his people and the sheep of his pasture) (Tate 1998, 534 🄲). n21->n0n22Poetic RepetitionIn Hebrew poetry, especially throughout the psalms, seemingly 'tautological' repetition is very common as a poetic and rhetorical device (Watson 2005, 275-282 🄼). n22->n21


Conclusion[ ]

From the above arguments it is clear that both the Ketiv (לֹא) and the Qere (לוֹ) are plausible readings. Both are attested in ancient versions, meaning the arguments must be based on coherence and plausibility within the text. For the following reasons, the Qere (לוֹ) is more likely the earlier version of the text: (1) There is clear precedent for reading לוֹ in other Ketiv/Qere cases including לֹא (K) and לוֹ (Q). (2) This reading is coherent with its surrounding context on a discourse/word-order level, correlating to the fronting/prominence of הוּא ("he") in the preceding clauses. It is also (3) coherent on a syntactic level, supplying the antecedent for the elided subject of the words that follow. Furthermore, it is (4) coherent on a semantic level, with covenantal commitment to YHWH ("we are his") being the natural response to him being the one who "made us", according to the logic and language of Israel's 'covenant formula' ("YHWH is our God, we are his people"). This is strengthened by (5) parallel verses, especially Ps 95:7, where similar constructions occur. Finally, (6) this reading corresponds with Hebrew usage and employs common phrasing patterns with the ל-preposition.

According to this reading, we have translated Ps 100:3 as follows: Know/Acknowledge that YHWH, he is God. He made us, and we are his, his people and the flock of his pasture.

Research[ ]

Translations[ ]

Ancient[ ]

  • LXX: αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἡμεῖς,[5]
    • It is he who made us, and not we;[6]
  • Aquila: ...καὶ αὐτῷ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν...
    • ...and we are his...
  • Symmachus: αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας.
    • He made us when we were not (i.e. non-existent) (cf. Rashi).
  • Peshitta: ܘܗܘܝܘ ܥܒܕܢ ܘܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܚܢܢ܂ [7]
    • "It is he who made us, and not we ourselves."[8]
  • Jerome: ipse fecit nos et ipsius sumus [9]
    • He made us and we are his...
  • Targum: הוא עבד יתנא ודיליה אנחנא[10]
    • "he made us, and we are his,"[11]


Modern[ ]

לוֹ (we are his)[ ]

  • English:
    • It is he who made us, and we are his. (NIV)
    • It is he who made us, and we are his; (ESV)
    • It is He who made us, and we are His; (Berean)
    • It is He who made us, and we are His. (TLV)
    • It is he who has made us, and we are his. (WEB)
    • It is he that hath made us, and we are his; (ASV)
    • It is He that hath made us, and we are his, (JPS 1917)
    • He made us, and we are his. (NLT)
    • He made us, and we are His (CSB)
    • He made us, and we are His (Holman)
    • He made us, and we are His, (LSV)
    • He made us, and we are His, (YLT)
    • He made us and we are his. (REB)
    • He made us, and we belong to him; (GNT)
    • He made us, and we belong to him; (ISV)
    • He made us and we belong to him; (NET)
    • He has made us, and we are His, (Alter)
    • He created us, and we belong to him; (CEV)
  • French:
    • c’est lui qui nous a faits, nous sommes à lui. (BFC)
    • Il nous a faits et nous sommes à lui, (TOB)
    • C’est lui qui nous a faits et nous sommes à lui. (PDV)
    • c'est lui qui nous a faits, et nous sommes à lui. (NFC)
    • C'est lui qui nous a faits, et nous sommes à lui: (NVSR)
    • C’est lui qui nous a faits, nous lui appartenons, (BDS)
    • C’est lui qui nous a faits, et nous lui appartenons; (LSG)
    • c'est lui qui nous a faits, et nous lui appartenons; (NBS)
    • C’est lui qui nous a faits, et nous lui appartenons: (S21)
  • German:
    • Er hat uns geschaffen, wir gehören ihm! (HFA)
    • Er hat uns geschaffen, ihm gehören wir. (NGÜ)
    • Er hat uns gemacht, wir sind sein Eigentum, (EÜ)
    • Er hat uns geschaffen und ihm gehören wir. (GNB)
  • Spanish:
    • él nos hizo y somos suyos. (NVI)
    • él nos hizo y somos suyos; (DHH)
    • Él nos hizo y suyos somos; (BTX4)
  • Italian:
    • lui ci ha fatti e a lui noi apparteniamo, (Ognibeni)

לֹא (not us)[ ]

  • English:
    • he made us, and not we ourselves. (Douay-Rheims)
    • It is He who made us, and not we ourselves; (NASB)
    • It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; (NKJV)
    • It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; (Darby)
    • It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; (Webster)
    • It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; (KJV)
    • hee hath made vs, and not we our selues: (Geneva 1587)
    • It is he yt hath made vs, & not we oure selues: (Coverdale 1535)
  • German:
    • Er hat uns gemacht und nicht wir selbst (Lutherbible 2017)
    • Er hat uns gemacht und nicht wir selbst (ELB)
    • Er hat uns gemacht, und nicht wir selbst, (ZÜR)
  • Spanish:
    • él nos hizo y no nosotros a nosotros mismos; (RVR95)

Asseverative Particle ל (We are indeed his people)[ ]

  • He made us, and we are indeed his people... (Tate 1998: 533).


Secondary Literature[ ]

Baethgen, Friedrich. 1904. Die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Briggs. 1906. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Dahood, Mitchell. 2008. Psalms II: 51-100: Introduction, Translations, and Notes. Vol. 17. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Delitzsch, Franz. 1877. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms: Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Goldingay, John. 2008. Psalms: Psalms 90-150. Vol. 3. BCOT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Gordis, Robert. 1971. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Augmented from 1937 edition. Brooklyn, NY: Ktav Publishing House.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. 2005. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Kahn, Geoffrey. 2013. “Ketiv and Qere.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Kahn.
Lewis, J. O. 1967. “An Asseverative לא in Psalm 100:3?” JBL 86: 216.
Ognibeni, Bruno. 1989. Tradizioni Orali Di Lettura e Testo Ebraico Della Bibbia: Studio Dei Diciassette Ketiv [Lo] Qere [Lo]. Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires.
Stec, David M., ed. 2004. The Targum of Psalms. The Aramaic Bible, v. 16. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press.
Tate, Marvin E. 1998. Psalms 51-100. WBC 20. Dallas, Tex: Word Books.
Taylor, Richard A. 2020. The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. 2005. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. T & T Clark Biblical Languages. London ; New York: T & T Clark.
Whitley, C. F. 1975. “Some Remarks on Lu and Lo.” ZAW 87: 202–4.


References[ ]

Approved

100:3

  1. ↑ "The Aramaic terms כְּתִיב ketiv 'written' and קְרֵי qere 'read' are used in the medieval Tiberian Masoretic sources to refer, respectively, to the biblical consonantal text and the reading tradition reflected by the vocalization signs" (Kahn 2013). In other words, there will be a reported difference between the consonantal text and how the Masoretic scribes suggest the text should be pronounced out loud in synagogue, according to their historical reading tradition. For a detailed list of different variations in Ketiv/Qere differences see Gordis 1971, 82-158.
  2. ↑ Ognibeni 1989: 1-20.
  3. ↑ LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta support the Ketiv. Aquila, Jerome, and Targum support the Qere. For a detailed overview see Ognibeni 1989, 107-108, 190-194.
  4. ↑ Two other interpretations deserve mention but will not be presented with an argument map.
    1) Asseverative Particle ל "And we are indeed his people": Some scholars (Lewis 1967, Whitley 1975, Tate 1998, 532-534) have argued for reading the ל here as an asseverative ל (sometimes called the emphatic lamed (IBHS §11.2.10i), which was later mistaken by textual scribes for לֹא or לוֹ. Although there is some plausibility to this argument, almost no modern interpreters have adopted it and it is weak compared to the two more plausible options presented above. For scholars who argue against this interpretation see Dahood 2008, 371 and Goldingay 2008, Psalm 100.
    2) Rashi/Symmachus: A further alternative is proposed by Rashi who writes: הוא עשנו ולא: כשלא היינו בעולם ("He made us and not": When we were not in the world). This interpretation follows the Ketiv but splits the clauses differently. He proposes that the first clause is הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ וְלֹא, meaning "he made us when there was nothing [lit. he made us and not]". The word אֲנַ֑חְנוּ then becomes the subject of the following clause, אֲנַ֑חְנוּ עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ "We [אֲנַחְנוּ] are his people, the sheep of his pasture". Interestingly, Symmachus also seems to follow this reading: ...αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας ("he made us when we were not"). Although this solution may be theoretically plausible, it involves very unusual usage of the word לֹא and has not been seriously considered by any modern interpreters. Furthermore, the two main options presented above are both far more plausible, and also the Masoretic accents disagree with this clause division. Therefore, although it is a creative solution, no argument map will be presented for this alternative. For scholars who argue against Rashi and Symmachus see for example Baethgen 1904, 301.
  5. ↑ Rahlfs 1931.
  6. ↑ NETS: NETS.
  7. ↑ CAL
  8. ↑ Taylor 2021:407. Footnote: For MT וְלֹא and not many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and the qere were have וְלוֹ and to him. This would require reading and we are his rather than and not we ourselves. P agrees with the kethiv of the Leningrad manuscript (i.e., and not we ourselves).
  9. ↑ Weber-Gryson 5th edition.
  10. ↑ CAL
  11. ↑ Stec 2004:183.
Retrieved from "https://psalms.scriptura.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Text_and_Meaning_of_Ps._100:3&oldid=63479"