Is this an absolute or construct noun?

Here's Psalm 24:6:

זֶה דּוֹר דֹּרְשָׁו^ק̇ מְבַקְשֵׁי פָּנֶיךָ יַעֲקֹב סֶלָה׃

Two questions:
(1) In the first colon, is דּוֹר a construct or absolute noun? Logos' Westminster morphology goes with the former (construct), Andersen-Forbes with the latter (absolute). I'm not sure how to tell.

Here are my translations of the whole verse, following the qeri reading (i.e. דּוֹר is followed by a plural and not singular participle; this is A-F's move too):

Following qeri:

Construct: "this is the generation of those who seek him, of those who search out your face, Jacob."
Absolute: "this is a generation that seek him, that search out your face, Jacob."

(2) Is the ketiv (i.e. sing. part.) possible? Is it unusual, given the plural participle in the second colon? דּוֹר can be followed by both a singluar or a plural noun (e.g. Deut 2:14). The switch in the verse from singluar to plural in the second colon may be an example of grammatical parallelism ...

Here are my translations:

Construct: "this is the generation of one who seeks him, of those who search out your face, Jacob."
Absolute: "this a generation that seeks him, that search out your face, Jacob" (Note the lack of an "s" on the second verb. This would work in English, e.g. one can say "Microsoft want" or "Microsoft wants."

Is בקש פנים liturgical?

The phrase מְבַקְשֵׁי פָנֶיךָ יַעֲקב ("who seek your face, O Jacob") in Psalm 24:6 has been text critical headache for generations, as I posted about here. One argument in favour of the Septuagint's alternative rendering (ζητούντων τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ Ιακωβ, "those who seek the face of the God of Jacob") is that בקש פנים belongs to liturgical idiom. Tromp says:

like the verb drš of verse 6a bkš properly signifies the appearing before a god's statue (Kittel, 1929:95). Indeed the lexicon shows that bqš pnym in the Old Testament is exclusively used for a visit to the king (twice) and to God, in order to obtain good advice or help (five times); for this see especially Psalms 27,8 and 105,4 (Gesenius-Buhl, 112B).

I'm probably missing something here, but since when is visiting a king a liturgical act? And if it isn't, then doesn't that simply undermine the argument that, on the basis of the terminology alone, one ought to expect מְבַקְשֵׁי פָנֶיךָ to supplement by אֱלהִים ?

Another question: is the use of the phrase in Psalms 27:8 (אֶת־פָּנֶיךָ יהוה אֲבַקֵּשׁ) and 105:4 (בַּקְּשׁוּ פָנָיו תָּמִיד) necessarily liturgical? Why can't it refer to seeking God in prayer apart from the temple (as the lament Psalms of sickness do)?

Text criticism of Ps 24:6: arguments pro and contra MT

מְבַקְשֵׁי פָנֶיךָ יַעֲקב in Ps 24:6 has proven problematic for the majority of modern interpreters. Their proposed solutions, however, are as diverse as the readings found in the ancient versions. In this post I simply summarize arguments for and against MT, collated from Tromp's 1982 article, "Jacob in Psalm 24: Apposition, Aphaeresis or Apostrophe?" (in Von Kanaan bis Keraala, 271-282). I have issues with some points, but I'll bring them up in the comments if necessary.

Arguments against the MT are as follows:

1. The ancient versions (which are diverse). LXX, which is followed by the Vulgate, adds τοῦ θεοῦ to make ζητούντων τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ Ιακωβ (“those who seek the face of the God of Jacob”). The Peshitta, on the other hand, keeps MT's suffix and translates the rest as a vocative: “your face, O God of Jacob.” The Targum has a third person pronoun and gives an interpretative expansion: “who seek the brightness of his face, Jacob.”


2. The switch from third to second person is unnatural. This move privileges either LXX or the Targum, but not the Peshitta.


3. MT destroys the synonymous parallelism, as found in LXX and Targum.


4. בקש פנים belongs to liturgical idiom. Tromp writes: "the lexicon shows that bkš pānîm in the Old Testament is exclusively used for a visit to the king (twice) and to God, in order to obtain good advice or help (five times)." For this, see especially Psalms 27,8 and 105,4.” One would thus expect God to be the object of the seeking.

In response to these arguments, one can defend MT as follows:

1. LXX is not followed by many ancient versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Quinta, Sexta, Jerome's Psalterium Gallicanum, and Vetus Latina1). In addition to this, the differences between the translations differing from MT give the impression that they are conjectures. Bäthgen suggests that they are nevertheless correct conjectures.


2. The switch is certainly jarring, though not impossible. According to Tromp, it is not uncommon in emotional style. In this case, it may be the result of the combination of enallage and an apostrophe, occurring at some stage in the text's early history (the option preferred by Tromp).


3. MT has the lectio difficilior, in which the translators have attempted “to simplify the text by employing [a] contextually more fitting lexical, grammatical, and stylistic form" (Barthélemy).


4. Tromp adduces Akkadian parallels to argue that the idiom does not have to be liturgical and adds that “the position of 'Jacob' in this verse is a peculiar one indeed.” He does not, however, explain why.

Does anyone have any views on this?

The English translations are as varied as the ancient versions:

ESV and NRSV follow LXX by eliminating the suffix and adding "God of": "who seek the face of the God of Jacob"

NASB follows MT and sees Jacob as the subject of the participles: "Who seek Your face—even Jacob."

This is essentially the same as the NET's paraphrase of the whole line: "Such purity characterizes the people who seek his favor, Jacob’s descendants, who pray to him."

My favourite is the good old KJV, which, like the NASB follows MT, but translates Jacob in the vocative (cf. Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis): "that seek thy face, O Jacob."

Should we amend יְכוֹנְנֶֽהָ in Ps 24:2?

That's what BHS suggests (but not BHK). It recommends emending yiqtol יְכוֹנְנֶֽהָ to qatal כּוֹנֲנָהּ, no doubt in order to synchronise the tense with qatal יְסָדָהּ in the previous colon.

Of all the commentators I'm aware of, only Craigie follows this suggestion, and for the same reasons.[1] It is not clear, however, why he feels such an emendation is necessary, given that in his own discussion of tenses in Hebrew poetry (pp. 110-113) he is aware of the diverse uses to which these conjugations are put. Referring to Dahood's “Grammar of the Hebrew Psalter,” he points out that the qtl-yqtl sequence can refer to both past time as well as the future.[2] The qatal//yiqtol sequence is in fact common in Hebrew poetry and is held by some scholars to be poetically (e.g. Berlin[3], Tatu[4]) and semantically (e.g. Niccacci[5]) significant.

In my opinion, MT should be retained.

See my discussion of this form in my two posts: Translating a qatal/yiqtol sequence in Ps 24:2 (drawing on Niccacci) and its sequal: Translating a yiqtol verb in Ps 24:2.

[1] Craigie, Psalms, 210. He translates into the past simple, “established,” and adds in the text critical note: “Reading כוננה (viz. perf for imperf.; cf. BHS); a perfect tense is implied, given the tense in the preceding parallel line.”
[2] Dahood, Psalms III, 361–456; cited in Craigie, Psalms, 111.
[3]Adele Berlin, “Grammatical Aspects of Biblical Parallelism,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979), 17-43.
[4] Silviu Tatu, “The Rhetorical Interpretation of the yiqtol//qatal (qatal//yiqtol) Verbal Sequence in Classical Hebrew Poetry and its Research History,” in Transformation 23/1 (2006), 17-23.
[5] A. Niccacci, "The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry" in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006).

Translation of ἁγιάσματος in the Psalms.

In Psalm 24:3 we have: מִי־יָקוּם בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשֹׁו, where קָדְשֹׁו is usually translated as an adjective: "who may stand in his holy place."

Rahlfs' Septuagint also translates קָדְשֹׁו as an adjective: ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ.

However, there is another LXX textual tradition, preferred by Pietersema in his NET translation, that has a nominal form: ἐν τόπῳ ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ.

What is the significance of these two varients?

Is ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ a Hebraism, simply translating the Hebrew nominal-construct form while still intending the word to have adjectival force (and thus the same meaning as Rahlfs' ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ: his holy place)?

Or does it intend to express something different to the textual tradition found in Rahlfs' Septuaginta, i.e. "holiness" itself, creating the translation: "the place of his holiness"?

Another possibility is that ἁγίασμα refers to the "holy sanctuary," even the temple itself, rather than God's own concrete holiness. In this case, LXX Ps 23:3 should be translated as "the place of his sanctuary."

If we leave aside the possibility of a Hebraism, our choice between "holiness" and "sanctuary" can have interpretative implications. In LXX Psalm 77:54, for example, we have εἰς ὅριον ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ (for Hebrew אֶל־גְּבוּל קָדְשֹׁו in MT Psalm 78:54). In the Hebrew context, it is uncertain whether the mountain in the same verse refers to Zion, Sinai, or something else. The Hebrew simply means "to his holy territory," i.e. translating קדש as an adjective. What is LXX doing with its nominal form ἁγιάσματος? Is it maintaining the ambiguity (i.e. somewhere where God's holiness was present) or is it trying to clarify the referent (to Zion, the territory where his sanctuary is)? If the latter option is to be preferred, we have an example of ancient interpretation.

The same would apply to Psalm 24:3. Is the LXX textual tradition with ἁγιάσματος trying to clarify the referent of מְקוֹם קָדְשֹׁו by using a noun rather than an adjective (i.e. "the place of his sanctuary" rather than "the place of his holiness")?

Another possibility is that rather than ἁγιάσματος being a matter of interpretation (here, clarification), it is just a matter of ancient grammar. Eliezer Berkovits in “The Concept of Holiness” [*] argues that קדש should always be translated as a noun. Perhaps one strand of ancient translation agreed with him. The difference still hasn't been resolved today: some translators MT go for an adjective: "in his holy place" (and thus agree with ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ), whereas others (e.g. Seybold) go for a noun: "in his sanctuary" (=ἐν τόπῳ ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ).

Either way, it would seem that he debate is quite ancient!

This still leaves open the question of how to translate ἐν τόπῳ ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ. Does it mean "holiness" or "sanctuary." Both translations are possible (amongst others). Unfortunately, Pietersma's translation is not too helpful on this. He translates LXX Ps 77:54 as "the territory of his holy precinct," but LXX Ps 23:3 as the "place of his sanctity." What are his criteria?

So what do you think? How ought we translate ἁγιάσματος and what is the significance of its divergence from ἁγίῳ?

And am I an oddball for getting so bogged now in marginal

I should add that elsewhere, בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשֹׁו is translated as ἐν τόπῳ ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ (Ezra 9:8), where the reference is to the temple. Sirach 36:12 refers to Jersualem as ἐκλεκτὴ πόλις ἁγιάσματος, translated as "holy" by KJV and "sanctuary" by the REB. Again, confusion over the meaning of the term.

Update: In order to strengthen my desire to read ἁγιάσματος as refering to the sanctuary, rather than just holiness per se, J.K. Gayle has kindly pointed out that in 2 Chronicles 36:17 the Hebrew בְּבֵית מִקְדָּשָׁם , which literally means "the house of their sanctuary," is also translated with ἁγιάσματος in the LXX: ἐν οἴκῳ ἁγιάσματος αὐτοῦ (though why it's αὐτοῦ and not αὐτῶν) I'm not sure.

[*] Essential Essays on Judaism. D. Hazony, ed. Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2002: 247-214. [Originally in his, Man and God; Studies in Biblical Theology, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1969].

What is the goal of text criticism in a "canonical approach"?

This is the question I was asked in an e-mail recently. Here is my "off-the-top-of-my-head" answer:

This is a huge question and I'm not sure I can sum it up in a few words, but I'll give it a shot.

For a start, Childs' canonical approach is sensitive to the theological witness of the people of God, the "community of faith" (and not, as many seem to think, the witness of a disembodied text). This theological witness is "progressive," extending from the first prophetic utterances to the way in which those utterances were preserved, shape, and passed on to new generations, a process taking place within a dialectic relationship between the people of God and God himself. As such, even editorial changes added after the stabilization of the text, i.e. the phase leading up to the establishment of the authoritative Masoretic text in 1 C.E., ought to be taken account of as part of the theological witness of the whole.

The problem is: "who are the people of God" (as I understand Childs, who I find hard to understand). For Childs, this was and is the Jewish people who are the "authoritative tradents of the tradition," and so he believes that although the text traditions of the various communities that existed (Qumran, LXX, etc.) are interesting and ought to be taken account of, when it comes to formulating doctrine or getting at the "substance" of Scripture, the "vehicle" for such a project ought to be the text form elected by the only Jewish community to have survived till the present. This is why he argues that the goal of text criticism, as far as theological exegesis is concerned, is to reconstruct the MT of the 1st century C.E. The diachronic dimension ought to be taken into account, but only as a means of elucidating the Rabbinic Masoretic Text.

This has been critiqued by people such as Neusner, who argues that if one wants to respect the Jewish way of doing things, one mustn't make the kind of distinction Childs makes between text and tradition. For Jews they are the same thing (or something like that ...). Childs responds that this is a later development (2nd century C.E.) and raises the challenge that in making this move Judaism has distanced itself from some of its earlier traditions, which held to a strong distinction between text and tradition, Scripture and Targum. In fact, I think he believes that the collapsing of text and tradition marks a major moment in the parting of the ways of the two faiths ...

As usual, I may be getting things wrong. So please do correct me.

Update: In the comments, Michael has asked some pretty penetrating questions, to which I have responded.

Translation of masoretic note for Psalm 24: 3 (מִֽי־יַעֲלֶה)

I've just finished working through Israel Yeivin's Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah and have had a jab at translating the note for מִֽי־יַעֲלֶה in Psalm 24: 3. It's not easy as the notes consist of inconsistent abbreviations and are mostly in Aramaic (which I can't read ... yet). In fact, at one point in time they were so incomprehensible that they lost their function as guarantors of the text and became decorative devices on the corners of the manuscript (Yeivin). G. Weil also notes that

As early as the 16th centruy Elias Levita wrote in the second rhymed introduction to his Massoreth Hamassoreth (Venice, 1538) that the language of the Masora was unintelligible, the very conciseness of its style making it as secret as the words of a sealed book.

To add to my workload, the wording of the masoretic note to my word differs in the Masorah parva and the Masorah magna. I'll post the two quotes in the original below along with my translation, culled from both sets of notes. My three questions are:

1. Is my translation OK?
2. What is the difference between the Mm and the Mp (I can't understand all of the Mm)?
3. Why was this information of signifance to the Masoretes? Did it really help them preserve the accuracy of the text, or were there other considerations at work?

Masora parva:

ג̇ ר״פ מי וג̇ מילין רביע ומי וכל פסוק̇ דאית בהון ח̇ מילין

Masorah Magna:

ג̇ דראשי פסוק̇ מִי ותלת מילין ורביעית וּמִי ומינין כל פסוק̇ ח̇ ח̇ מילין

Here's my translation, based primarily on the Masorah parva:

(One of) 3 (occurrences), (in which there is) a “who” at the beginning of the verse and (then) three words, the fourth (of which) is “and who.” And the whole sentence contains within it 8 words.

For those who are interested, the references (סימנהון) are Ps. 24: 3; Job 34: 13; and Job 36: 23.

Masorah vs Logos

According to the Masorah of Psalm 24: 3, the phrase בְהַר־יְהוָה occurs three times in the Bible: in our verse here and in Genesis 22:14 and Isaiah 30: 29. No matter how I type this phrase into my Logos word search, however (i.e. with or without vowels and accents), I only get two results: Ps 24: 3 and Isaiah 30: 29.

How is that possible? The only difference between Ge 22:14 and the other verses (apart from the accents) is that it doesn't have a maqqef. If I speed search the highlighted text in Gen 22: 14, I only get one hit.

Am I doing something wrong or were the Masoretes really inspired?

Update:

As I've written on the side bar of this blog, I'm a technological numpty. I've figured out the problem. Gen 22:14 does turn up in the morphological search, as long as all the settings are right! Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to post the differences between Logos and the Masorah in the rest of Psalm 24. All the references, in fact, are completely accurate appart from two:

• 1) v. 2: According to the Masorah: יְכוֹנְנֶהָ occurs 4 times, though Mm doesn't say where (I think this means that this reference wasn't in the Leningrad codex ...). My Logos search only produces 3 results (Psalm 24:2; Psalm 48:9; Psalm 87:5). Someone has suggested offline that the missing fourth could be Ps 7:13, which has a waw: ויכוננה. I think this would be odd though, as waws were significant for the Masoretes and were either counted as a separate form or at least remarked upon.

• v. 5:Masorah says that יִשָּׂא occurs 37 times. Logos has produes 39 hits. The note is "Mp sub loco," so I don't know which verses the Masoretes had in mind.

A Blog Discussion on MT vs LXX

Unfortunately I find it hard to keep up with the great posting that goes on in the blogosphere. Way back in November, Stephen from Emerging from Babel had a great discussion on Childs and the question of which text tradition ought to be authoritative for the church. Excellent contributions from John Hobbins and Daniel Driver are to be found in the comments.

The first post is here: Which Text?

The second here: Which Text? part 2