Smith DTh Thesis (final).pdf - South African Theological Seminary

Chapter 4: Analysis of Psalms 3-84.3 Psalm 54.3.1 Textual variantsThe variants in this psalm are of little consequence for this study, dealingmainly with pronominal suffixes. In verse 7, Craigie (1998:84) favoursJerome’s Latin version in preferring תָ‏ ףֵ‏ ב ְ (“you abhor”) over the MasoreticText יְתָ‏ ףֵ‏ ב (“he [Yahweh] abhors”) on the grounds that it harmonises best with(p. (“you destroy”) earlier in the verse. For similar reasons, he argues ְ אַ‏ בֵ‏ ד85) for ץִ‏ יהֶ‏ ם over ץִ‏ יהּו in verse 10. In both instances, I consider the externalevidence overwhelmingly in favour the more difficult reading of the MasoreticText יְתָ‏ ףֵ‏ ב)‏ and ץִ‏ יהּו respectively). The Septuagint adds κύριε (Hebrew, ‏(יהוה atthe end of verse 11, but there is no reason to prefer it to the shorter reading ofthe Masoretic Text (see Craigie 1998:83).4.3.2 Historical reconstructionThe heading attributes the psalm to David דָ‏ וִ‏ ד)‏ ‏.(לְ‏ Many scholars (e.g., Briggsand Briggs 1906; Weiser 1962; Dahood 1966; Broyles 1999; Craigie 1998;Terrien 2003) reject Davidic authorship, mainly on the grounds of thereferences to “your house” תֶ‏ ‏ָך)‏ ‏(בֵ‏ and “your holy temple” יכַ‏ ל־רָ‏ דְ‏ שְ‏ ‏ָך)‏ ‏(הֵ‏ in verse 8.Others (e.g., Leupold 1961; Kidner 1973; Ross 1985; Phillips 1988; Keil andDelitzsch 2002; Rawlinson 2004; Lane 2001; Smith 2006) argue that David121