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.