# Textual critical questions regarding Psalm 145: MT compared to the 11QPs-a and LXX



## Grimmson (Dec 16, 2010)

Questions: Do you think we have a verse missing between Psalm 145:13-14 within the Psalms? If Psalm 145 is an acrostic Psalm, why is the nun verse missing in the Masoretic Text (and thus missing from our own Bible or at least from KJV and NKJV, also it should be pointed out that several English translations do include the missing nun verse) compared to its presence in 11QPs-a (Dead Sea scroll), and the translated equivalent in the Septuagint (which was the Greek speaking Christian Old Testament of the early church)? By the way there has been found one Medieval Hebrew manuscript that does contain the nun verse (see Apparatus of _Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia_). Why do these three have the same matched nun verse? I hope you all have fun in the discussion and let us try to be civil with one another. Hopefully I placed this in the right forum, if not then the administrators are welcomed to move it to the appropriate forum. 

From lines 2-3 of column 17 of 11QPs-a:

נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשֹיו

From the Septuagint:

πιστὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Do you think we have a verse missing between Psalm 145:13-14 within the Psalms?



Actually some modern translations do include the non-Masoretic portion of verse 13 - in some cases, even in their main text. For example, the NIV renders the phrase in question, "The Lord is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made" and footnotes the main issues regarding manuscript evidence. Other translations like the ESV bracket this portion to make more readily known its questionableness.


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 16, 2010)

Phil D. said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think we have a verse missing between Psalm 145:13-14 within the Psalms?
> ...


 
Thanks, I am aware of that, I was just considering the KJV and NKJV Translations and the infalliable standard that applied by some regarding the MT towards are own English Bible. I will fix that in my orginal post for clarification, and for catching me on the issue.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2010)

From a more technical standpoint, the NET offers theses potential pros and cons for its authenticity:

Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm, with each successive verse beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. However, in the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text of Psalm 145 there is no verse beginning with the letter nun. One would expect such a verse to appear as the fourteenth verse, between the mem (מ) and samek (ס) verses. Several ancient witnesses, including one medieval Hebrew manuscript, the Qumran scroll from cave 11, the LXX, and the Syriac, supply the missing nun (נ) verse, which reads as follows: “The Lord is reliable in all his words, and faithful in all his deeds.” One might paraphrase this as follows: “The Lord’s words are always reliable; his actions are always faithful.” Scholars are divided as to the originality of this verse. L. C. Allen argues for its inclusion on the basis of structural considerations (Psalms 101-150 [WBC], 294-95), but there is no apparent explanation for why, if original, it would have been accidentally omitted. The psalm may be a partial acrostic, as in Pss 25 and 34 (see M. Dahood, Psalms [AB], 3:335). The glaring omission of the nun line would have invited a later redactor to add such a line.​


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 16, 2010)

The question would then be when was the nun line added if it was done by a redactor; because it would be doubtful that it would have been started by an LXX translator or user. The person had to be knowledgeable of the style in order to add it. And it is interesting to point out that the line existed prior to the birth of Christianity.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> it would be doubtful that it would have been started by an LXX translator or user



Why so?


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 16, 2010)

Phil D. said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > it would be doubtful that it would have been started by an LXX translator or user
> ...


 
First, regular user of the LXX would not know enough Hebrew to recognize the acrostic Psalm, just like with English speaking people reading the same Psalm today. Secondly, the consideration that Hebrew Texts would need to have been infected first. There needed to be the nun line if there was to be a direct translation. The author would need to write or think of a good nun equivalent in Hebrew first that would match the apparent style of the Psalm and then translate late it into Greek later. Therefore the person would have to be extremely knowledgeable of Hebrew; such was not the case of many or majority of the Hellenistic Jews. I remember when I took Greek 2 or 3 under Baugh a comment that some of the translations of the Hebrew to the LXX in various separate books varied, and were many times not the best translation that could be offered; in other words a bad translation. Also there the consideration that the reading of the verse pre-dates Christianity and was in use during the time of Jesus based on the Dead Sea Scroll evidence. Also a major consideration is its use in Syriac and the existence of a Hebrew version that was in use between the Dead Sea Scroll inclusion of it and the formalized establishment of the MT tradition that rejected it. Hebrew origin would make the most amount of sense considering it wide spread usage and the lack of variant readings in the traditions of the LXX and Syriac. The problem of course is the lack of early Hebrew manuscripts for a complete or final confirmation one way or another to the best of my knowledge. But a majority usage over a large scale geographic area and at a particular time should tell us something of the acceptedness of a particular reading of scripture. Particularly considering the well known meticulous process in which Hebrew scribes copied their texts; which would eliminate additions into the Hebrew. There would be a higher chance of losing scripture in such a process then a longer addition.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2010)

David, I see and largely agree with what your saying here. The only thing I would say is that since the creators of the LXX were obviously very familiar with Hebrew prose, and given the fact that the LXX is almost paraphrased in some parts, it seems at least possible that an "appropriate" acrostic phrase could have been "filled in" at that point.


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 16, 2010)

It is possible, we just need to consider how good the Hebrew version/edition was written as it relates to the genre style and context, the quality of the Greek translation, and how well the Hebrew scholar/ translator knew the Psalm. The problem with the acrostic phrase being filled in is of course why was it used in Hebrew during the time of Christ and the Apostles; along side of that question is the existence of a Hebrew medieval text prior to the MT. I just wish more early texts were preserved in Hebrew by the providence of God to answer such issues definitively .


----------



## MW (Dec 16, 2010)

On the structural side -- it is quite common for the acrostic to undergo variation for stylistic reasons. In this case a reason can be offered why the original author chose to remove a letter. With its absence the psalm contains three equal stanzas of seven verses each.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> On the structural side -- it is quite common for the acrostic to undergo variation for stylistic reasons. In this case a reason can be offered why the original author chose to remove a letter. With its absence the psalm contains three equal stanzas of seven verses each.


 
I wasn't aware of this. That is indeed a very interesting fact to consider in favor of the MT reading. On the other hand, might not such a structural issue have prompted the omission of the phrase by a later Type A redactor?


----------



## MW (Dec 16, 2010)

Phil D. said:


> On the other hand, might not such a structural issue have prompted the omission of the phrase by a later Type A redactor?


 
One's theory of redaction is going to influence the answer to that question. One of the problems with modern day criticism is that it doesn't pay enough attention to oral sources. The average seminary graduate probably isn't going to have the tools to competently think through the subject because he hasn't developed a concrete theory on how variants might have emerged because of oral patterns. It is interesting in the present case to observe the 3x7 structure is a literary one whereas the omission in the acrostic would be obvious to a speaker/hearer. If that is accepted it is likely that the need to fill in the omission has come from an oral tradition rather than a textual one. That would argue in favour of the omission being original.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Dec 16, 2010)

Grimmson,

This is a very difficult textual variant. The problem is that the Vulgate and the LXX are very similar in the Psalms. It is likely that Jerome was still trying to revise the Old Latin when he did the Psalms. I would also want to see how closely the Syriac and the LXX are. There are many books [such as Isaiah] in which they are very similar. There is also the question as to whether 11QPs-a is part of the LXX resention.

Also, if this is the case, then I don't think that a Kennicott manuscript containing the reading would be significant. The reason is that the transmission history of the Hebrew Bible is very long, and, during the course of that time, LXX readings did end up making their way back into the MT.

That being said, if you simply have the LXX resention vs the MT resention, that is still good enough for a true variant. The issue would be, then, which variant best explains the rise of the others. We can understand someone skipping a line. However, in this case, that argument is weakened in that there is no real reason for someone to skip a line [such as homoitelution]. However, it is also difficult to understand, if the nun line were original, why it would be omitted.

While I lean towards the MT reading, I do so tenitively. Leslie Allen's structural argument for the inclusion of the nun line is interesting. However, rationally, I don't see any way to settle the issue.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 16, 2010)

I don’t have a way to settle the issue either and I admit my knowledge of Hebrew textual criticism and it’s history is lacking. I didn’t know the “LXX readings did end up making their way back into the MT.” One should admit that it is an interesting variant for discussion and one we don’t spend much time talking about in our own time, in the education of seminary students, or even our own congregations. I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful manner that you all have addressed the questions at hand. If any one else has anything to add towards one opinion or another then feel free to do so. These kinds of conversations can become heated on the board and am happy it did not in this case. Hopefully this question has wetted the appetite for more people to study textual issues and is now a resource for others to look at in the future when the need arises.


----------



## Elimelek (Dec 17, 2010)

I concur with L.C. Allen. I do think there is enough reason to read the verse as original. How is it possible for the nun to have been left out in the acrostic? Just look at the Paleo-Hebrew Script, not the Aramaic script used for Hebrew in later years. The mem




and nun



are so near each other, it is easy for your eye to jump (the only difference is a zig-zag stroke). Why would it have survived in 11 QPs? It seems that the refrain added to this psalm could explain it. These words were sandwiched in between the Psalms verses:


> Blessed/Praise be to the Lord and blessed/praised is his name forever and ever. (an adaptation of Psalm 145:1b)


The Psalm was used by some, probably the people of Qurman for liturgical recitation.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Dec 19, 2010)

Elimelek,

The more I think about what you said, the more I think it is a real possibility. This is an acrostic Psalm, and hence, the emphasis is on the visual rather than the oral, and parablepsis would be highly likely between the different letters of the acrostic.

God Bless,
Adam


----------

