Exegesis of Psalm 127
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Exegesis of Psalm 127 Sungjin Kim Box #320A OT 770 Dr. Douglas Stuart December 20, 2011 2 Abbreviations AB The Anchor Bible ABD David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (Yale University Press, 1992) BBC The Broadman Bible Commentary BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, 1996) EBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary GBHS Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge University Press, 2003) GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1922) HALOT Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Brill Academic Publishers, 2002) Holladay William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988) IBHS Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns, 1990) ISBE Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Eerdmans, 1982) JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JM Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Biblical Institute Press, 2006) JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament NAC The New American Commentary NIDOTTE Willem A. VanGemeren, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols. (Zondervan, 1997) OTL The Old Testament Library SBL Society of Biblical Literature TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986) TLOT Ernst Jenni, Claus Westermann, and Mark E. Biddle, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997) TWOT Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, and Bruce Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Moody Publishers, 2003) VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WTJ Westminster Theological Journal 3 1 1 I have written in the Hebrew writing style of the late period (between 500 B.C. and 100 B.C.) since I have dated the passage to the postexilic period (See “6. Historical Context”). Jeff A. Benner, "Charts of Ancient Semitic/Hebrew Script," http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_home.html (accessed December, 2, 2011). 4 1. Text Notes: Some of the LXX (i.e., codex Sinaiticus, codex Alexandrinus, textus Graecus מלִשְׁלֹ֫ ֹ֥ ה :1a However, since the LXX influenced . מלִשְׁלֹ֫ ֹ֥ ה ex recensione Luciani) and Peshitta2 omit the the formation of Peshitta, this coincidence should not be taken seriously.3 In fact, other LXX all supports the 4(לשלומה) Vulgate (Salomonis) and Qumran ,(שלמה) τῷ Σαλωμων), Targum) MT. Even though the Targum is less venerated for its “paraphrastic” nature,5 still other important readings such as the Qumran – a source as reliable as the MT6 – and the Vulgate – a somewhat useful source for the MT since it followed early Hebrew7 – should be taken decisively. Therefore, with this good evidence from the Qumran, some of LXX, Vulgate, and Targum, the MT should be regarded as the preferred reading. This word is in “hiphil participle” form. Whereas the LXX (τοῦ ὀρθρίζειν) and מַשְׁכִ ִּ֪ימֵ י :2a the Latin Vulgate (surgere) read it as infinitive, which in Hebrew could be transliterated as is preferred for several reasons. First, there is a repetition מַשְׁ כִֵּימֵ י However, the MT .הַשְׁ כֵֵּ(י)ם Therefore, changing .א כְׁלֵ י and מְׁאַ ַֽחֲרֵ י ,מַשְׁ כִֵּּ֪ימֵ י :(v. 2) ש ֵּ וְׁ אֵּלכֶ ם of three participles after the מַשְׁ כִ ימֵ י) would break this pattern. As Allen rightly pointed out, three participles הַשְׁ כֵֵּ(י)ם it to 2 George M. Lamsa, Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text: George M. Lamsa’s Translation From the Aramaic of the Peshitta (Harper & Row, 1985), 652. 3 Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1993), 81; Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results (IVP Academic, 2006), 274. 4 J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), 40–41. 5 Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd ed. (Westminster John Knox, 2001), 187; Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, 69, 72. 6 Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 4th ed. (Westminster John Knox, 2009), 88. 7 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001), 153. R. K. Harrison points out that Jerome did not fully follow the early Hebrew but sometimes referred to the LXX, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in his interpretation when he faced doctrinal problems. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 240. 5 Second, Joüon puts 8.ש ֵּ וְׁ א seemed to be functioning as appositions to (א כְׁלֵ י / מְׁאַ ַֽחֲרֵ י / as infinitive construct” has been used to be an קּום“ as a good example that מַשְׁ כִֵּימֵ י ֵּקּום object of a hifil, in order to express an “adverbial idea.”9 Accordingly, the construction should מַשְׁ כִ ימֵ י seems to be in a proper sense.10 Third, the meter analysis also confirms that Otherwise, the meter of 16-14-14-16 in v. 1-2 would be changed .הַשְׁ כֵֵּ(י)ם not be replaced by to 16-14-13-16 (See “6. Structure”). Therefore, it is not appropriate to assume the LXX or Vulgate is a preferable reading over the MT.11 is a piel participle, the LXX (μετὰ) and Vulgate (postquam) write מְׁאַ ַֽחֲרֵֵּי While מְׁאַ ַֽחֲרֵ י :2b The MT reading is .אַחֲרֵֵּי it as a preposition, which in Hebrew can be transliterated as distorts the participles repetition found in v. 2 אַחֲרֵ י ,preferred because, as discussed above affects the syllable counting אחרי Furthermore, changing it to .(א כְׁלֵ י / מְׁאַ ַֽחֲרֵ י / מַשְׁ כִ ימֵ י) where the original 16-14-14-16 structure would be distorted to 16-14-13-16 (if changed to .( אחֲרֵ י or 16-14-12-16 (if changed to (א ַֽ חֲרֵ י While the MT and Peshitta read the same, the LXX reads ὅταν (when) and the כֵֵּן :2c Now, difficulty in .כִ י Vulgate reads cum (when) which can be transliterated in Hebrew as textual criticism arises since the Peshitta supports the MT and the Vulgate advocates the LXX. When the Peshitta, a daughter translation of the LXX, supports some of the word(s) or expression(s) in the MT, it means the scribe of the LXX might have thought the MT was an 8 Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983), 176. 9 JM, §124n. 10 Loren D. Crow, Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134), Their Place in Israelite History and Religion (Atlanta, Georgia: SBL, 1996), 66–67. 11 See J. A. Emerton, “The Meaning of šēnā’ in Psalm CXXVII,” VT 24, no. 1 (January 1, 1974): 15–31. Crow, Songs of Ascents, 66–67; Allen, Psalms 101-150, 176. 6 original on that particular part. Likewise, when the Vulgate, a daughter translation of the MT, follows some of the LXX, this mean the scribe of the Vulgate might have thought the LXX of that particular part was more original.12 Therefore, our case that “Peshitta supports MT” and “Vulgate advocates LXX” causes greater difficulty in making a decision. Unfortunately, lacuna of the Qumran passage in this part cannot bring us any clue.13 Even meter analysis are counted as one syllable. Therefore, it is (כִ י/כֵ ן) cannot be a help, since both of the words not surprising to see many scholars trying to solve this problem rather in a contextual and interpretational aspect. Amazingly, scholars have been divided into four groups. since he thought it renders a much clearer כֵֵּן over כִ י First, Crow suggested because, for)” rather than) כִּ י interpretation, though he preferred it to be translated as “causal is כֵֵּן when)” (like LXX and Vulgate).14 Second, Kraus15 and Allen16 insisted) כִ י temporal“ distorts the meaning of the sentence. Thus they suggested “so כִּ י a much better reading since and כֵֵּן Third, Emerton17 argued that both .כֵֵּן much,” “in such manner” for the translation of כִּ י should be the translated as “surely” and כֵֵּן do make good sense. So he suggested that כִ י should be translated as “for, because” if any of them were proved to be an original reading. would give the best כִ י and כֵֵּן Fourth, Briggs 18 maintained that the reading without translation. כִ י or כֵֵּן However, Briggs’ argument seems to be incorrect since omitting either 12 Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, 95–97, 274. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 152. Tov insisted that “Psalms in Peshitta” show exclusive dependency on LXX. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 152. 13 John M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158-4Q186) (Oxford Press, 1968), 51–52. 14 Crow, Songs of Ascents, 67. 15 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 1st ed. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2000), 453. 16 Allen, Psalms 101-150, 176. 17 Emerton, “The Meaning of šēnā’ in Psalm CXXVII,” 17–19. 18 Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1925), 459. 7 and כֵ ן would distort the meter of vv. 1-2 into 16-14-14-15. I think Emerton is right that both can render quite a reasonable interpretation for the sentence.