In the KJV, Psalm 145:13 reads: Thy kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. In
the ESV, the verse reads: Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your
dominion endures throughout all generations. The Lord is faithful in all his
words and kind in all his works.
Notice that the second sentence in the ESV is absent in the
KJV. The NASB follows the KJV, while the NIV and the New Living Translation
agree with the ESV. The question is twofold. Where does this line come from? And,
is it a legitimate part of the biblical text?
The answer to the first question is as follows: The
additional line is found in the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation
of the Old Testament. It is also found in the Hebrew text of Psalms from the
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), one medieval Hebrew manuscript, and in the Syriac
version. It is not found in the vast majority of medieval Hebrew manuscripts.
The answer to the second question is more difficult, and the
following comments constitute my summary of the arguments.
Arguments in favor of the originality of the line:
1.
Psalm 145 is an acrostic
psalm. That is, each line (verse, in this case) begins with a successive letter
of the alphabet. Verse 1 (after the title) begins with aleph. Verse 2 begins
with bet, and so on. However, there is no nun (n) line in the standard Hebrew
text, making it an incomplete acrostic. The line in the LXX, the DSS, the one
Medieval Hebrew manuscript, and the Syriac supplies this “n” line, making the
acrostic complete.
2.
All other verses in the
Psalm are one line long, whereas this verse, with the second line, is two lines
long. A copyist could have inadvertently skipped this second line in his
copying, and copies made from that copy would not have included the line.
3.
The fact that the line is
found in one medieval manuscript, the DSS, and two ancient versions makes a
case for the originality of the line.
4.
The line fits well with
what follows in the Psalm, making a transition in the thought from what
precedes to what follows.
5.
Though the second part of
the line (“and kind in all his works”) is also found in verse 17, such a
repetition is occasionally found in the Psalms.
Arguments in favor of omitting the line:
1.
Almost all Hebrew
manuscripts, after the DSS, do not include the line.
2.
The Psalm could have
intentionally been an incomplete acrostic. There are other examples in the
psalms of such incomplete acrostics.
3.
The LXX is not always an
accurate translation in the Psalms.
4.
The Syriac translation in
general shows a fair amount of influence from the LXX. Hence, it is not always
considered a separate textual witness.
5.
An early copyist, noting
the missing “n” line could have supplied it, explaining its presence in the DSS
copies and in the one medieval manuscript.
6.
The second part of the
line, “and kind in all his works” is also found in verse 17, perhaps indicating
part of the source for some copyist seeking to complete the acrostic.
I don’t think the arguments in either direction are
compelling, leaving it a matter of judgment on the part of translators. It
should be noted, however, that prior to the 1950s, no translation team had
access to the DSS manuscripts. The NASB, the NKJV, the NET Bible, and the
Lexham English Bible are, to the best of my knowledge, the only post-1950s
translations that do not include the line.
The NET Bible adds the following note: “Psa 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 Psa 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
(ם) 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 (ן) 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 (Psa
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 Psa 25
and Psa 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment