Textual
Variant
Psalm
116:6
|
YHWH protects the simple,
|
שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם יְהֹוָה
|
|
when I was brought low, he
saved me.
|
דַּלּוֹתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ׃
|
In this non-parallel bicolon the A-line consists of a
participle clause VPt O S, while the B-line contains two verbal clauses,
V w-M V, one canonical and one apparently marked. Why the latter should place
the prepositional object לִי
in the clause-initial position is uncertain. There does not appear to be
anything in the context that warrants this element being in focus. Restrictive
focus would be technically possible, but not supported by contextual
considerations. Ancient translations with a tendency to adhere to the Hebrew
word order reflect an unmarked clause: καὶ ἔσωσέν
με (LXX, ‘and he saved me’); cf. et liberavit me (Vulg). Possibly,
therefore, the original Hebrew text may have had the order V M.
The following text presents an altogether different
situation:
Psalm
34:18
|
They cry out, and YHWH
hears,
|
צָעֲקוּ וַיהוָה שָׁמֵעַ
|
|
and delivers them from all
their troubles.
|
וּמִכָּל־צָרוֹתָם הִצִּילָם׃
|
Here the first 3rd person plural verb (צָעֲקוּ) lacks an explicit subject. Normally in
such circumstances the preceding context would be expected to provide the
Inferred participant. In this case, however, the preceding verse concerns those
described as ‘evil-doers’ (עֹשֵׂי
רָע). To take such as the implicit referent in verse 18 is utterly
inappropriate to the rest of the verse. It is obvious that whoever is being
spoken of, God favours such people, for the B-line declares that he delivers
them from their troubles. In the theological context of the Hebrew Scriptures
the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to God (cf. Prov. 15:8, 29, 21:7;
28:9). The text presented by some of the early versions offers a smoother
reading, e.g., ἐκέκραξαν
οἱ δίκαιοι, (LXX, ‘the righteous cried out’); clamaverunt iusti (Vulg). By the
inclusion of the NP[Su] ‘the righteous’, the difficulty is overcome. These
versions may not necessarily have been translating from a better Hebrew text,
but it is possible that they have inserted something that dropped out in its
early transmission. Accepting this revised reading, the constituent order of
the A-line would be V S w-S V. It is now easier to appreciate the reason for
the fronting of the divine name in the second clause, וַיהוָה שָׁמֵעַ. With the inclusion of the preceding
subject phrase we are able to detect the presence of a parallel topic
structure, that is, ‘The righteous cry out, and God hears’. We note the closely
related verse earlier in the same psalm, זֶה עָנִי קָרָא וַיהוָה שָׁמֵעַ וּמִכָּל־צָרוֹתָיו
הוֹשִׁיעוֹ (‘This poor man calls out, and YHWH hears,
and he delivers him from all his troubles’, v. 7). Here the A-line contains two
clauses of the order S V w-S V. Like contrastive constructions it is also
possible that both subject phrases in this parallel construction may be placed
in the marked position.
Each of the above situations creates a potential
difficulty, but when certain other grammatical, rhetorical, and textual factors
are taken into consideration, they are seen to present no real obstacles to the
proposed solution regarding word order. (Nicholas P. Lunn, Word-Order
Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics [Paternoster
Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2006], 238-39).
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com