Devotional
Short Note on Psalm 71: This Psalm does not have a header but it is seemingly very
easy to see who designed this Psalm. For the sake of the Hebrew Adventists in
our denomination, a comparison is made between one of David’s earlier Psalms,
Psalm 31:2-4 and this Psalm in 71:1-3. The comparisons are more than the
differences. But, the differences cannot be just glossed over. They need to be
explained and that is what the purpose is here. The reason is that God’s Word
is infallible but humans are not, yet, the Holy Spirit decides that it is good
enough for instruction and building-up the saints.
בך־יהוה חסיתי .......a31:2.................................................
בך־יהוה חסיתי ............a71:1 אל־אבושה לעולם .....b31:2...................................................אל־אבושה
לעולם.......b71:1 בצדקתך תצילני פלטני....a31:3..........................................בצדקתך
תצילני (ות)פלטני....a71:2 הטה־אלי אזנך (מהרה)
הצילני... b31:3............................................הטה־אלי אזנך (והושיעני).....b71:2 היה לי לצור מעו(ז)....
c31:3....................................................היה לי לצור מעו(ן) ....a71:3 לב(ית)מ(צו)(ד)(ו)ת להושיעני....
d31:3...................................לב(וא) תמ(י)ד צו(י)ת להושיעני ....b71:3 כי־סלעי ומצודתי אתה...
a31:4.................................................כי־סלעי ומצודתי אתה ....c71:3 (ולמען שמך תנחני ותנהלני)....
b31:4....................
There are a number of citations from Psalms in 71 which makes
one think it is a compendium of thoughts from David’s poems. The likelihood is
strong that David made the compendium himself. It is almost that he picked up
one by one of his poem “scrolls” and read it and a scribe scribbled down word
for word that David dictated. But note, the scribe or David in reading his own
handwriting or the handwriting of the scribe who scribbled it down by his
dictation, made some slips in Psalm 71:1-3 from Psalm 31:2-4. Normally and in
all general human situations since Adam’s time until our own, there are five
slips all scribes makes: slip of the hand (orthography or bad handwriting);
slip of the ear; slip of the tongue; slip of the eye; and lastly due to bade
memory, slip of the memory. People are people. It does not change the theology
of the text and since it is included in the canon by the Holy Spirit Editor of
human writings, He left it that way. That is with the original writers. The
Holy Spirit used through the centuries copyists (who also made the same slips)
to copy the original writer’s books or works but in the Hebrew tradition they
read and reread it that the copy is exactly the way David wrote it, slips and
all. Sometimes spelling differences are just dialect difference in a bilingual
situation. Like today in our age. A compendium means that selectively around a central
theme here and there parts of poems are brought together. It can be someone
later but it can be the author of the poems himself. In 71:2a the form in the
original is transformed from perfectum or past to imperfectum or future (see
the (…) supra). In 31:3a David said “in Your Righteousness cause me to be
delivered and rescue me” but in 71:2a David said: “in Your Righteousness cause
me to be delivered and You will rescue me”. The nuance is slightly different.
What are two actions in 31 is given a hendiadys proportion in 71, one through
the other, namely, if you give me one then I have the other. In 31:3b David wanted God to act fast: “Incline to me Your
ear from speed. Deliver me” and in 71:2b David said: “Incline to me Your ear
and cause me to be saved”. In 31 the agony is physical danger but in 71 the
agony is spiritual deeper restlessness. Maslow’s five needs are known to all
but apparently Maslow added in the late sixties a sixth need, the one for transcendental
connection. Unfortunately all world systems in education, psychology,
sociology, politics, economy, philosophy are all sculpturing their ideology
with his five needs and not the six. Leaving out the sixth need results in
secularism and secular goodness and a secular Utopia. David’s need in 31 is
Maslow’s need one and David’s need in 71 is Maslow’s need six. One almost makes the mistake of saying it is a slip of the
eye that explains the variant in 31:3c and 71:3a. Not so. It is impossible for
David to have read a tenth century zayin as a nun since the zayin looked like
an H lying vertically and the nun is a letter with a long tail vertical from
top to bottom. One letter horizontal and one letter vertical cannot cause a
misreading. It is better to say there are two words in Hebrew of David’s time
that served as words for buildings that were spelled almost identical: maon (dwelling
place/rock of habitation) and maoz (fortress of defence). In 31:3c David was
still in his military years, general and fighting on all fronts but in 71:3a he
is now settled against outside forces so that dwelling place or palace is
better at that point that sitting in a military fortress. The case in 31:3d and 71:3b is seemingly a situation
where David or his scribe could not read the bad orthography or handwriting of
the manuscript. Soldiers do not always have the best of handscripts. לב(ית)מ(צו)(ד)(ו)ת להושיעני....
d31:3...................................לב(וא) תמ(י)ד צו(י)ת להושיעני ....b71:3 What happened in this verse is maybe the following: David
or his scribe in his soldier years wrote lbt but should have written a yod /y/
between /b/ and /t/. He placed it supralinearly when he realized that. Spelling
correction. The scribe of 31:3d also left out ṣw and placed it supralinearly.
It appear that he also left out wt in 31:3d and it was also placed in the
margin or supralinearly. A later reader, maybe David or his scribe tried to
figure out what the supralinear corrections or marginal notes meant. Some
confusion slipped in as to the correct order of the placements of these
corrections and the phenomenon of floating letters happened. If one investigates
carefully, none of the letters were missing. It is not just a case that David
said: “Ah, let me just find another word here and change the thinking”. There
is an attempt to keep to nothing more than the letters used in 31:3d. The ‘w in
the first word lb’w is a misreading of a tenth century BCE /t/ as an /aleph/.
The shapes of both letters were the same then as one can see on the Moabite
Stone and the Gezer Calendar. Then with the next word, David or his scribe
placed the supralinear yod at the spot of the the missing ṣw from 31:3d
(although in a marginal position corrected earlier) and placed the wrong
correction in this slot to end with tamid in 71:3b. Notice all these letters
are in 31:3d. None are missing. The next step for David or his scribe was to
add the supralinear or marginal missing ṣw after tamid and since the yt in the
first word is lbyt, David or his scribe took it to be yt in this word ending in
71:3b with ṣwyt. The yt was probably also in the margin in 31:3d giving rise to
this floating of letters phenomenon. We have here a slip of the eye condition
due to slip of the hand or orthography (aleph and taw misreadings) and marginal
corrections leading to misplacements in order of the letters. David or his
scribe’s intention was not to create new phrases. In 71:3b it reads: “to which
continuously come You have ordered to my salvation” and in 31:3d “to a house of
defense to my salvation”. The Holy Spirit and David are happy with both. So are
we. Does this mean that the Bible has errors? Some call it
errors and others variants. Is the Word of God not infallible? Yes, but humans
make spelling errors. Should we correct the Bible when we think there is a
spelling error or grammatical error? No. Puritanic Grammarians have embarked
upon correcting the Old Testament of what they perceived as “ungrammatical
expressions”. A. Speiser complained about these linguists and it is best to
leave the Word of God exactly as it is, even if there are what we thought is
not proper grammar. Loanwords, bilingualism, dialectical differences, all these
factors plays a part in the spelling, syntax and other aspects of the Hebrew
Bible. “Hands off” is the rule. Using scissors to cut out words or phrases are
taboo. Deleting anything from the Word of God regardless our intention, is
taboo. Scholars calls it “emend” and at the bottom of the BHS you can see in a
lower register suggestions of Ehrlich to emend the Word of God with a “better
Hebrew” on the basis of whatever. Say no. Say never. Leave it as it is if you
do not understand but do not change the Word of God. Scholars say, “O the Old Testament grew bigger and bigger
as generations passed and more and more were added to the originals”. Not so.
The Hebrews were meticulous how they copied. Even the dialectical differences
and what the modern scholars perceive as inconsistencies or errors or syntax
problems were left as it is unchanged in the Hebrew original. But doesn’t
Qumran have shorter texts than our modern Hebrew Old Testament? No. They (at
Qumran) shortened the original Word of God for didactic, liturgical or other
purposes not the other way around. It was common in those days to shorten texts
and they did the same with Homer’s Iliad at the Library of Alexandria during
the same period. But, doesn’t the Septuagint force us to interchange some
Hebrew forms of the verb for a better reading as Julius Wellhausen demonstrated?
No. Wellhausen was an Arabist not a Hebrew Semiticist. Secondly, “Septuagint”
or Greek translation of the Old Testament is an “elusive term”. No-one profess
that the modern editions are exactly a reconstruction in replica of the
original Septuagint. So Wellhausen could not make any suggestions that are
legitimate. Doesn’t Qumran texts force us to make changes? No. Qumran texts are
degenerative texts full of errors, misreadings, shortenings of the texts,
parabiblical texts and compendiums. David in Psalm 71 had all the authority to
make a compendium poem in his old age. David’s religious education as a young boy is mentioned
by him in 71:17 “You have taught me from my youth”. A word that baffled the translators in 71:6 is the word
gwzy or גוזי. They did not
know what it means. The best is to use the Middle Egyptian and Late Egyptian
word gwš meaning “turn away” or “turn aside”. Translate then the whole verse 6
as: “Upon You were I stayed from birth; from the womb of my mother You have
turned me away”. Notice the connections to other Psalms: 71:10 = 3:1; 71:11 = 41:8; 56:7; 71:12 =
35:22 and 40:14; 71:13 = 35:4 and 35:26; 71:15 = 40:6; 71:19 =36:6 and 35:10;
71:22 = 78:41 and 81:19; 71:24 = 35:28 and 35:4, 26 and 40:15.