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

Chapter 4: Analysis of Psalms 3-8denotes behaviour that is contrary to an accepted standard, such as treatingsomeone unjustly. Next he alludes to having “repaid” ‏,ּגָ‏ מַ‏ ל)‏ 37:10:1, v. 5a) an“ally” ‏,שָ‏ לֵ‏ ם)‏ 116:17:1, v. 5a; NRSV) with “evil” ‏,שַ‏ ע)‏ 299:29:3, v. 5a). Theparticiple מִ‏ י ‏,‏literally‏—שולְ‏ “the one at peace with me”—“probably refers to aclose friend or ally, i.e., one with whom the psalmist has made a formal‏,חָ‏ לַ‏ צ)‏ “plundered” agreement” (NET, note 7). Last he is charged with having16:2:1, ‏,שֵ‏ ירָ‏ ם)‏ cause” 26:14:3, v. 5b) “without ‏,קֹשֵ‏ ש)‏ “enemy” 44:12:2, v. 5b) hisv. 5b). 76 If “my ally” (v. 5a) and “my enemy” (v. 5b) refer to the same person76 Psalm 7:5b poses several difficulties for interpreters and translators. Both Craigie (1998:96)and the NET Bible follow Tigay (1970:178-186) in amending “my enemy” שִ‏ י)‏ ‏(קושְ‏ to “hisenemy” שו)‏ ‏,(קושְ‏ alluding to the enemy of the psalmist’s “friend” (v. 5a). Craigie thus translates,שֵ‏ ירָ‏ ם “and rescued his adversary empty-handed.” The NET Bible also interprets final mem onas enclitic, treating שִ‏ יר as an attributive adjective modifying “his enemy,” thus yielding “orhelped his lawless enemy.” Most translations prefer not to alter the Masoretic Text. Thisforces them to interpret חָ‏ לַ‏ צ as “rob” or “plunder,” a meaning derived by extension from itscommon Piel sense of splitting “a collection of connected objects by force” (Swanson1997:§2740), but this meaning is nowhere else explicitly attested. The adverb שֵ‏ ירָ‏ ם may thenקושְ‏ שִ‏ י (“plundered my enemy without cause”, ESV) or with אֲ‏ חַ‏ לְ‏ קָ‏ ה be construed either with(“plundered him who without cause was my adversary”, NASB). Both syntax (an adverbmodifying a verb rather than a nominal participle) and context (the psalmist could hardly becharged with betraying someone who without cause was his enemy) favour the ESV. Since159