The Text and Meaning of Psalm 7:5b

Back to Psalm 7

Introduction

Every single word in this sentence contains some sort of difficulty:

• What is the meaning of the verb וָאֲחַלְּצָ֖ה?
  • 'To deliver/rescue'?
    • E.g., 'Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary' (ASV, cf. Aquila, Jerome, cf. Symmachus, KJV, JPS, ELBBK, SCH2000, PDT, RVR95)
  • Following the suggestion of BHS, should we emend the text to וָאֶלְחֲצָה from לחץ 'to oppress'?
    • E.g., ܘܐܢ ܐ݁ܠܨܬ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܝ ܣܪܝܩܐܝܬ݂ 'or if I have oppressed my enemy without cause' (Peshitta, cf. DELUT, DHH94I).
  • 'To plunder/spoil/rob'?
    • E.g., 'Or have plundered him who without cause was my adversary' (NASB1995; cf. NRSV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, LEB, NIV, NLT, HFA, NGU2011, BCC1923, BDS, LSG, PDV2017, LBLA, NTV, NVI).

• What is the correct reading for the following word צוֹרְרִ֣י?
  • Should we instead read צוררו 'his foe'
    • E.g., 'or helped his lawless enemy' (NET).
  • Should we retain the MT?
    • E.g., or plundered my enemy without cause' (ESV, cf. virtually every translation below)

• What does רֵיקָֽם modify?
  • Does it modify the main verb וָאֲחַלְּצָ֖ה?
    • E.g., or plundered my enemy without cause (ESV; cf. LXX, Peshitta, Targum, HCSB, LEB, NIV, NLT, JPS, BDS, DHH94I, NTV, NVI, PDT?).
  • Does it modify the participle צורר, viz., something like 'He who was my enemy without cause'?
    • E.g., 'Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary' (ASV; cf. Aquila, Symmachus, KJV, NASB1995, NET, DELUT, ELBBK, HFA, NGU2011, SCH2000, BCC1923, LSG, PDV2017, LBLA, RVR95).

• What is the meaning of רֵיקָֽם?
  • Is it 'without cause'?
    • E.g., 'or plundered my enemy without cause' (ESV; cf. every modern translation below except JPS).
  • Or, is it 'without effect'?
    • E.g., 'I who rescued my foe without reward' (JPS; cf. LXX, Aquilla, Symachus, Peshitta?).

Argument Maps

The Meaning of וָאֲחַלְּצָ֖ה

"Rescue" (preferred)

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===

[Rescue/Deliver]: The meaning of the piel of חלץ is 'to rescue' or 'deliver' (e.g., Aquila, Jerome).
 + <Regular Attestation>: 'Elsewhere in the Psalter, חלץ pi. always refers to God's deliverance of men' (Kwakkel 2002 :M:).
  + Pss. 6:5; 18:20; 34:8; 50:15; 81:8; 91:15; 116:8; 119:153; 140:2
 - <Morally Reprehensible>: 'This interpretation is shunned by the other versions and commentaries (see notes 8-10 below), and rightly so, for in context it is a monstrosity: it makes rescuing one's enemy, like the other acts specified in vss. 4-5' (Tigay 1970, 179 :A:). #dispreferred
  <_ <Irrelevant>: This Ad Hominem attack does nothing to address the question at hand—the meaning of the verb. 'Distasteful as this may be to us, it fits in quite well with the customs and mores of the time' (Bratcher 1972, 242 :A:).

"Plunder"

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===

['To Plunder']: The meaning of the piel חלץ is 'to rob, plunder' or 'to spoil' (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV; Delitzsch :C:; Hosfeld and Zenger :C:) #dispreferred
 - <No Attestation>: 'Others define ‏חָלַץ (khalats) as “despoil”..., an otherwise unattested nuance for this verb' (NET notes). The root has this sense in Syriac, but not in Hebrew (so Hupfeld :C:; Waltke 2010 :M:)
  <_ <Nominal Form Attested>: The substantive חֲלִיצָה is attested in BH (2 Sam 2:21; Judg 14:19). #dispreferred
   <_ <Qal not Piel>: The form חליצה is built off of the qal stem, not the piel.
 + <Use in Levitics>: In Leviticus 1:40, 43 the verb חלץ in the piel refers to the 'tearing out' of stones (Kwakkel 2002 :M:). #dispreferred
  - <Idiosyncratic>: 'The use of the piʿel in preference to the qal is explained by the assumption that the removal of the stones requires great effort by more than one person, which accounts for the plural' (Milgrom 1991:872 Levitics 1–16 AYB :C:). Thus, the semantics of the qal are retained in this usage. The piel is explained on other grounds.
  <_ <Also supports 'to rescue'>: 'The meaning "pull out, tear out" , used of stones in an infected house (Lev. 14:40, 43), is perfectly consonant with the meaning " pull out of danger", that is, "rescue, save", which is the meaning of the verb in the piel in all its other occurrences.' (Bratcher 1972 :A:).
 - <'Plunder' Not Linguistically Plausible>: 'To deliver' is the regular meaning, and to posit 'plunder' as an additional meaning would create a situation where the word means two opposite things, and 'grossly...damage the communicative efficiency of a language' (Tigay :A:, citing Barr 1968, 138 :M:). 'Notably, in Syriac, where חלץ has the meaning "plunder," it does not also have the meaning "rescue."

"Oppress"

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===
[Emendation—'to oppress']: The text should be emended to וָאֶלְחֲצָה from the verb לחץ 'to oppress' (e.g., HALOT :L:; Peshitta; Targum). #dispreferred
 + <Well-Known Scribal Error>: Metathesis is a well-known scribal error (Waltke :M:). #dispreferred
 + <Ancient Support>: The LXX's Vorlage had לחץ instead of חלץ and that's why LXX translates with ἀποπίπτω 'to fall away' (BHS). #dispreferred
  - <Faulty Analysis>: 'To replace חלץ with לחץ does not get us any closer to ἀποπίπτω, however. לחץ in Psalms is translated not with ἀποπίπτω but with θλίβω "to afflict" (Smith 2019 :A:).
   + Psalm 55:2; 105:42

The Text of צוֹרְרִ֣י

Emendation to צוררו

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===
[Emend to צוררו]: The phrase צוררי, ('my foe' ) should be emended to צוררו ('his foe') (Tigay 1970). #dispreferred
 <_ <No Different from צוררו>: The foe in question is the Psalmist's foe precisely because the צורר is the Psalmist's friend's foe. Since they have the same meaning, there is no need to resort to emendation.
 + <Scribal Error>: Scribes commonly confuse 'i' (hireq yod) and 'o' (holem waw) (Waltke 2010 :M:). #dispreferred
 + <Ancient Near Eastern Precedent>: In ANE alliances , 'the obliged party (or parties_ agree(s) to treat the other's enemy as his own enemy and the other's ally as his own ally' (Tigay 1970 :A:).
  + itti nakri ša bēlīa nakrāku u itti šalāmi ša bēlīa šalmāku ‘to my lord's enemy I am an enemy, and to my lord's ally I am an ally” (Cited in Tigay 1970 :A:).
 + <Israelite Precedent>: Alliances between individuals and between tribes in Israel included defensive obligations (Tigay 1970 :A:)
  + Abram and Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre (Gen 14 13, 24), the Israelite tribes and the Gibeonites (Josh 10 6 ff.), David and Jonathan (I Sam 20 5-16), and David and Achish (I Sam 28 1; 29 8). 
 - <No External Support>: There are no ancient witnesses that reflect this emendation.

Retain MT's צוררי

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
===
[Retain MT's צוֹרְרִי]: Leave the text as it stands—צוֹרְרִי ‘my enemy’.
 + <No Different from צוררו>: The foe in question is the Psalmist's foe precisely because the צורר is the Psalmist's friend's foe. Since they have the same meaning, there is no need to resort to emendation.
  + <Ancient Near Eastern Precedent>: In ANE alliances , 'the obliged party (or parties_ agree(s) to treat the other's enemy as his own enemy and the other's ally as his own ally' (Tigay 1970 :A:).
   + itti nakri ša bēlīa nakrāku u itti šalāmi ša bēlīa šalmāku ‘to my lord's enemy I am an enemy, and to my lord's ally I am an ally” (Cited in Tigay 1970 :A:).
  + <Israelite Precedent>: Alliances between individuals and between tribes in Israel included defensive obligations (Tigay 1970 :A:)
  + Abram and Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre (Gen 14 13, 24), the Israelite tribes and the Gibeonites (Josh 10 6 ff.), David and Jonathan (I Sam 20 5-16), and David and Achish (I Sam 28 1; 29 8). 

The Meaning of רֵיקָֽם

Without Cause

===
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
===
[Without Cause]: The word רֵיקָֽם should be understood here as meaning 'without cause'; 'without reason' (so DCH :L:; HALOT :L:).
 + <Does Not Preclude 'Without Cause'>:'In Ps. 7:5(4) and 25:3 rêqām occurs in texts that are difficult to interpret and may reflect textual problems. In any case it means "for nothing, for no reason." (TDOT 13:483). So R. Malbim's comment: ריקם משמש כמלת חנם..ר׳׳ל על דבר ריק 'Reqam is used like ḥinam, that is BECAUSE OF nothing' (= for no reason).
  + יֵבֹ֗שׁוּ הַבּוֹגְדִ֥ים רֵיקָֽם׃ 'May those who are wantonly treacherous be put to shame!' (Psa 25:3).

Without Effect

===
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
===
[Without Effect]: The meaning of רֵיקָֽם is 'without effect', also reflected by translations like 'empty' or 'in vain' (e.g., BDB :L:; LXX; Aquila; Symachus; Berger 2014 :A:). #dispreferred
 + <Usual Meaning>: The word ריקם, which appears almost exclusively with verbs of motion that denote sending away/setting free (שלח), going (הלך), returning (שׁוב), or appearing (ראה), gives the sense of 'empty/in vain/ without effect’ (Berger 2014, 286 :A:). #dispreferred
 - <Does Not Preclude 'Without Cause'>: 'In Ps. 7:5(4) and 25:3 rêqām occurs in texts that are difficult to interpret and may reflect textual problems. In any case it means "for nothing, for no reason." (TDOT 13:483). So R. Malbim's comment: ריקם משמש כמלת חנם..ר׳׳ל על דבר ריק 'Reqam is used like ḥinam, that is BECAUSE OF nothing' (= for no reason).
  + יֵבֹ֗שׁוּ הַבּוֹגְדִ֥ים רֵיקָֽם׃ 'May those who are wantonly treacherous be put to shame!' (Psa 25:3).
 - <Lack of Coherence>: '”Without result,”...seems pointless in our passage' (Tigay 1970, 170n.6 :A:).
 + <En Gedi>: The meaning 'free my enemy in vain' perfectly coheres when David met Saul at En-Gedi. 'For after David not only declines to kill Saul in the cave but also prevents his men from taking such initiative (1 Sam. 24.4-7), to suggest that the young warrior nonetheless maintains evil intentions against the Benjaminite king—a belief which, as will be seen, the text of Samuel consistently finds it necessary to discredit—indeed amounts to an allegation that David set free his enemy in vain (Berger :A:). #dispreferred
  <_ <Superscription>: 'Cush' probably does not refer to Saul, but to someone actually named Cush. 'The obscurity of the incident tends to support both its antiquity and its authenticity'; other historical sources for David's life existed (1 Chr 29.29) (Cragie 1983, 99). '...if it originated from the ingenuity of an editor...it seems more probable that he would have connected the psalm with a well-known episode from David's life' (Kwakkel 2002, 64). 

The Grammar of רֵיקָם

Modifying וָאֲחַלְּצָ֖ה

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
===
[Modifying וָאֲחַלְּצָ֖ה]: The word רֵיקָֽם modifies the main verb וָאֲחַלְּצָ֖ה, so something like, '(If) I have delivered my enemy without cause' (LXX, Peshitta, Targum, ESV, HCSB, LEB, NIV, NLT, JPS, BDS, DHH94I, NTV, NVI).
 + <Parallelism>: The parallel “evil” favors construing רֵיקָם as an accusative of state modifying the subject, not the object as in KJV, ASV, et al (Waltke 2010 :M:).
  + <Poetics>: The parallelism is recognisable due to sound correspondences: the liquids, sibilants and yods in שׁולמי and צוררי, and the letter resh in רע and ריקם

Modifying צוֹרְרִ֣י

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"} 
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
===
[Modifying צוֹרְרִ֣י]: The word רֵיקָֽם modifies the participle צוֹרְרִ֣י, so ‘He who is my foe without cause'. #dispreferred
 + <Similar Occurrences>: שנאי חנם (Psa 35:19), איבי חנם (Lam 3:52), הבוגדים ריקם (Psa. 25:3).
 + <Majority>: The majority of translations follow this analysis, viz., Aquila, Symmachus, ASV, KJV, NASB1995, NET, DELUT, ELBBK, HFA, NGU2011, SCH2000, BCC1923, LSG, PDV2017, LBLA, RVR95. #dispreferred
 <_ <Parallelism>: The parallel “evil” favors construing רֵיקָם as an accusative of state modifying the subject, not the object as in KJV, ASV, et al (Waltke 2010 :M:).
  + <Poetics>: The parallelism is recognisable due to sound correspondences: the liquids, sibilants and yods in שׁולמי and צוררי, and the letter resh in רע and ריקם

Conclusion

The verb חלץ means 'to rescue' or 'deliver'. The proposal for emendation to לחץ is based on a faulty analysis of the LXX. To posit a homonym 'to plunder' is both linguistically implausible and partial to a very particular yet unnecessary reading of Leviticus 1:40, 43 which would, if accepted, require a very big semantic leap. The ANE alliances discussed by Tigay (1970) greatly inform our understanding of the Psalm, but do not entail emendation of צוררי to צוררו. If anything, it supports the more difficult MT reading; the צורר is the Psalmist's foe precisely because the צורר is also the friend's foe. The parallelism brought into effect by the poetic features of the lines in v. 5 favour construing ריקם with the verb אחלצה, not צורר. Finally, the meaning of ריקם is indeed usually 'without effect'. But this does not necessarily mean that it cannot mean 'without cause' which, to be sure, is attested in Psa 25:3. Note also the adverbial mem which very much echoes the causal semantics already felt by MALBIM who glossed the word as על דבר ריק 'on account of emptiness/vanity' = 'for no reason'.

For these reasons, we have rendered the verse as and if I have delivered my foe without reason.

Research

Lexica

HALOT

חלץ: Ps cj. 7:5 (rd. with Sept., Pesh., Tg. וָאֶלְחֲצָה).

ריקם: without cause Ps 7:5.

DCH

ריקם: without cause, with verb חלץ pi. plunder Ps 7:5,

BDB

ריקם: in vain, without effect: c. שׁוּב 2 S 1:22 (poem), Is 55:11, Je 14:3 (but v. ‏רֵיק‎ 1), 50:9; prob. also צוֹרֲרִי ר׳ ψ 7:5

Articles

Tigay (1970)

That the word שולם in our passage implies some type of alliance has long been recognized. Now that several ancient Near Eastern treaties and other texts relating to them have been published, we can draw upon them to fill in the background of our psalm.

Most of these treaties are for international alliances and involve unilateral or mutual defensive obligations. The obliged party (or parties) agree(s) to treat the other's enemy as his own enemy and the other's ally as his own ally. This is often expressed in a declaration of solidarity such as itti nakri ša bēlīa narkāku u itti šalāmi [=שולם] ša bēlīa šalmāku, “to my lord's enemy I am an enemy, and to my lord's ally I am an ally”.

We also know, from the Bible, of alliances between individuals and between tribes. Several of these include defensive obligations, such as those between Abram and Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre (Gen 14 13, 24), the Israelite tribes and the Gibeonites (Josh 10 6 ff.), David and Jonathan (I Sam 20 5-16), and David and Achish (I Sam 28 1; 29 8). These, too, would naturally be violated by rescuing or allowing the ally's enemy to escape.

Bratcher (1972)

The meaning "pull out, tear out" , used of stones in an infected house (Lev. 14:40, 43), is perfectly consonant with the meaning " pull out of danger", that is, "rescue, save", which is the meaning of the verb in the piel in all its other occurrences. One may refer to Psalms 6:4a, 18:19b (see the parallel 2 Sam. 22:20), 34:7b, 50:15b, 81:7a, 91:15c, 116:8a, 119:153a, 140:la.

Berger (2014)

Nevertheless, it remains distinctly noteworthy that, insofar as the superscription may be seen to connect our psalm to David’s experiences in the strongholds—including, prominently, his encounter with Saul in the cave at En-gedi—the natural meaning of v. 5b emerges decidedly sensible with no need for philological compromise or emendation of the text. For after David not only declines to kill Saul in the cave but also prevents his men from taking such initiative (1 Sam. 24.4-7), to suggest that the young warrior nonetheless maintains evil intentions against the Benjaminite king—a belief which, as will be seen, the text of Samuel consistently Ànds it necessary to discredit—indeed amounts to an allegation that David set free his enemy in vain. If our understanding of the superscription is correct, then, it stands to reason that its author saw this half-line as yet another instance of the poem’s resonance with this phase of the David story, as the speaker emphatically denies this very allegation.

Smith (2019)

BHS suggests that the translator read ואלחצה, from לחץ "to oppress." In other words one should transpose lamed and ḥet. To replace חלץ with לחץ does not get us any closer to ἀποπίπτω, however. לחץ in Psalms is translated not with ἀποπίπτω but with θλίβω "to afflict" (55:2, 105:42).

Monographs

Waltke (2010)

MT reads: “And I have rescued my foe without reason,” which is a semantically impertinent accusation. LXX, Syr. and Tg. probably read וְאלחצָה (wāʾēliḥiṣâ, “and I oppressed,” not wāʾ a ḥal e ṣâ and I rescued”), albeit in Syriac, not in Hebrew, ḥlṣ can mean “plunder.” Metathesis (i.e., reading lḥṣ[“to oppress”] for ḥlṣ [“to rescue”]) is a well-attested scribal error. Many English versions, however, questionably gloss this retroversion by “plunder” (so CSB, ESV, NKJ, NLT, and NRSV; with more finesse by “robbed” [NIV]), but the semantic leap from “oppress” to “plunder” is questionable and finds no analogy in the Hebrew Bible. Some translations (KJV, ASV, DBY, ERV, NAB, TNK) salvage MT by the pilpul “even I who rescued one who without cause is my enemy.” But in that case one expects conjunctive waw — used either as a disjunctive (i.e., “now I”) or an ascensive (i.e., “even I”) — not a narrative waw (“and so”). Also, one would expect “I” to be expressed. If that is David’s intended thought, he could not have expressed himself more unclearly. Robert G. Bratcher (“A Translator’s Note on Psalm 7:4b,” The Bible Translator 23 [1972]: 241f.) interprets MT to mean that David is guilty of not exacting the law of lex talionis (to punish in kind for an evil act) as demanded in Exod. 21:25, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21. But to show mercy to an enemy is not in itself a capital offense. Edward J. Kissane (The Book of Psalms, vol. 1, Psalms 1–72 [Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1952], pp. 28f.) interprets MT to mean that David freed his enemy who had injured his ally. Had David done so, he would be guilty of high treason. However, this interpretation demands a reading between the lines that no translator suspected. “My enemy” more naturally refers to the parallel “my ally” than to an unknown third party. Jeffrey H. Tigay (“Psalm 7:5 and Ancient Near Eastern Treaties,” JBL 89 [1970]: 178-86) achieves a more cogent, similar sense by emending ṣôr e rî (“my enemy”) to ṣôr e rô (“his enemy”): “if I rescued his foe without cause.” This reading is preferred because: (1) Scribes commonly confuse î and ô — in the DSS they may be indistinguishable; (2) the parallel “my adversary” abets this confusion and so does the reference to “my enemies” in verse 6[7]; (3) the introduction of “his enemy” is unexpected and so more difficult; (4) yet this emendation “clarifies” Cush’s accusation against David in their historical context (see exegesis).

Kwakkel 2002

in view of Lev. 1:40,43, where חלץ pi. is used for stones being torn out from a house, and perhaps also of חֲלִיצָה 'spoil' in Judg 14:19 and 2 Sam. 2:21 חלץ pi. can conceivably stand for 'to plunder' or 'to rob'. This solution, which agrees with the view of many interpreters, is preferred here (see, e.g., HALAT, 309a; Buttenwieser, 417; Delitzsch, 102; Eerdmans, Ill; Gunkel, 25; S.-P. 1m, Die 'Unschuldserkliirungen' in den Psalmen, Seoul 1989, 389)

Commentaries

Delitzsch (1883)

In 5b we do not take חִלֵּץ in the sense in which it usually occurs and render it: “rather I rescued . . .” (Louis de Dieu, Ew., §345 a, Hupf., Riehm). The parenthesis would be too short to lead over into a different tone from that in the three hypothetical clauses; it would also stand somewhat awkwardly immediately between the protasis and the apodosis; and it would begin with an impf. consec., thereby making it difficult for us to recognise it as a parenthesis. Why should not חִלֵּץ, conformably with its primary signification, expedire, eruere (according to which even the signification, to rescue, taken exactly, does not proceed from the notion of drawing forth, but from that of untying, setting free, exuere vinclis), here, as in Aram., mean exuere = spoliare. And how admirably this suits as an allu- sion to the incident in the cave, where David did not rescue Saul, but cut off the skirt of his robe, without, however, having חֲלִיצָה, exuvie, in view. As Hengstenberg remarks, ‘‘he makes the asseveration of his innocence in quite a gen- eral manner, thereby showing that his behaviour towards Saul was not something exceptional, but rooted in his whole dis- position and mode of action.” On the 1 pers. impf. cons. with ah, vid. on 111. 6. רֵיקָם belongs to צוֹרֲרִי (cf. xxv. 3, Ixix. 5).

Hupfeld (1888)

kann natür lich keinesfalls schon Nachsatz sein , etwa im Sinn der Verwünschung vgl. Alex. Nach Vorgang von L. de Dieu nehmen Del. u. a. חִלֵּץ in der Bedeut. spoliare, plündern, wobei dann auf 1 Sam 24.26 verwiesen wird: wenn ich ausgeplündert meinen Gegner ohne Ursach; aber dabei bleibt bedenklich, dass diese Bedeutung sich nur für das Aram. nachweisen lässt, im Hebr. findet das Pi. sich nur im Sinn von herausziehen, retten. Daher haben AE., Calv., Ew., Hpuf. u.aa 5b als paranthetischen Zwischensatz, der im Gegensatz zu 5a steht, angesehn, Riehm hat an Hi. 31, 30. 32. 18 erinnert vgl. auch Ew.345 a : vielmehr errettete ich den ohne Grund mich Bedrängenden; aber weder die von Ew. a. a. O. angezogenen Stellen noch Hi. 31:30; 32:18 sind unserer Stelle analog und beweisen die Möglichkeit dieser Auffassung. Der Einwand von Del. ist richtig: der Schaltsatz wäre zu kurz, um gegenüber den drei hypothetischen Sätzen als in einen andern Ton einlenkend zu gelten; auch stünde er ungeschickt zwischen Vordersatz und Nachsatz und begönne , sich selbst unkenntlich machend, mit Impf. consec. Syr. Chald. haben übers. , als hätten sie לחץ gelesen; ihnen folgen...und zwar korrigieren die letzteren ואלחצה, während HItz. den M.T. beibehält und behauptet, dass die Metathesis eingetreten sei, weil die Verdoppelung der Gutturalis misslich sei, daher חִלֵּץ Pi. zu לחץ: und ich bedrängte etc. Der so gewonnene Sinn passt ohne Zweifel gut in den Zussamenhang, nur freilich wird man sich zu jener Korrektur entschliessen müssen. Hingewiesen sei übrigens darauf, dass so a und b. im wesentlichen parallel sind, demnach unsere Auffassung von a durch b eine neu Stütze empfängt.

Baethegan (1904)

חִלֵּץ »herausziehn«  bedeutet im Hebr. immer »retten« z. B. 65; so hier auch Aq και ερρυσαμην. Bei dieser Bedeutung würde das Versglied 5b als Parenthese zu betrachten sein (»vielmehr rettete ich u. s. w.«). Aber eine solche Parenthese ist nur dann angezeigt, wenn der Vordersatz noch weitergeführt wird, wie Job 3130. Syr. Targ. haben dasselbe Wort wie 562 für לָחַץ »bedrängen«, wonach Neuere וָאֶלְחֲצָה emendieren wollen. Auf welche Vorlage die Übersetzung der LXX zurückgeht... kann ich nicht sagen. Sym. übersetzt ει ανηρπασα; diese Bedeutung hat das Wort sonst freilich nur im Aramäischen; da aber חֲלִיצאה exuviae spolia auch im Hebräischen vorkommt, so ist es nicht zu bedenklich, diese Bedeutung auch hier anzunehmen.

Craigie (1983)

if that person were “empty-handed” (v 5b), the treason would be worse, for it could not even be claimed that the act had been done for personal benefit, but only out of spite or hatred.

Hosfeld and Zenger (1993)

Der zweite Satz des Verses setzt unmittelbar die vergangene Handlung des ersten fort und konkretisiert sie (indem ich...). Das Verb ḥlṣ bedeutet »plündern, ausrauben«, vgl. Ri 14:9; 2 Sam 2:21.

Translations

Ancient

• LXX: ἀποπέσοιμι ἄρα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου κενός ‘then may I fall away empty from my enemies’ (NETS)
• Aquila: καὶ ἐρρυσάμην τοὺς ἐνδεσμοῦντάς με ματαίως ‘And [if] I rescued those who bound me without reason’ (Smith 2019, 135n.11)
• Symmachus: εἰ ἀνήρπασα τοὺς θλίβοντάς με ματαίως ‘if I carried off those who afflicted me without reason’ (Smith 2019, 135n.11).
• Vulgate: et dimisi hostes meos vacuos 'or I let my enemies go empty'
• Peshitta: ܘܐܢ ܐ݁ܠܨܬ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܝ ܣܪܝܩܐܝܬ݂ 'or if I have oppressed my enemy without cause'
• וּדְחַקֵית מְעִיקַי מַגָן 'Or pushed my oppressor down for nothing/without cause'?

Modern

English

• ASV: (Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary).
• ESV: or plundered my enemy without cause,
• HCSB: or have plundered my adversary without cause,
• KJV: (Yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy)
• LEB: or if I have plundered my enemy without cause,
• NASB1995: Or have plundered him who without cause was my adversary,
• NET: or helped his lawless enemy,
• NIV: or without cause have robbed my foe
• NLT: or plundered my enemy without cause,
• JPS: I who rescued my foe without reward

German

• DELUT: oder die, so mir ohne Ursache feind waren, beschädigt
• ELBBK: habe ich doch den befreit, der mich ohne Ursache bedrängte
• HFA: oder tatsächlich diejenigen beraubt habe, die mich nun grundlos in die Enge treiben
• NGU2011: und jene Menschen ausgeplündert habe, die mich jetzt grundlos bedrängen,
• SCH2000: und nicht vielmehr den errettet, der mich nun ohne Ursache bedrängt,

French

• BCC1923: si j'ai dépouillé celui qui m'opprime sans raison,
• BDS: si, sans raison, ╵j’ai dépouillé mon adversaire
• LSG: Si j’ai dépouillé celui qui m’opprimait sans cause
• PDV2017: Est-ce que j’ai volé celui qui m’en voulait sans raison ?

Spanish

• DHH94I: ¿Acaso he oprimido sin razón a mi enemigo?
• LBLA: o he despojado al que sin causa era mi adversario,
• NTV: o he saqueado a mi adversario sin razón,
• NVI: si he despojado sin razón al que me oprime,
• PDT: Dejé en libertad al que me perseguía.
• RVR95: (al contrario, he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo),

References

7:5 Approved