שני הנוסחים של מזמור תהלים קנא

The study examines the relationship between the two text-forms of Psalm 151, one of which is included in 11QPsa, while the other underlies LXX. Its conclusions are as follows. 1. In contrast to the editor of 11QPsa, J.A. Sanders, who assumed that the Hebrew text-form in that scroll is the original, while the text-form reflected in LXX is reworked and abbreviated, it is the author's contention that the linguistic and textual indications point to just the opposite — that the Qumran version is expanded and derivative, whereas the Hebrew text underlying LXX reflects the original scope of this psalm. The main points of argument are: The Qumran version betrays not only late language (as was demonstrated by A. Hurvitz) but also forced and artificial features, as well as corruptions in its text. Moreover, the Qumran version of Psalm 151 is longer than that reflected in LXX, while all of the indications of the aforementioned qualities appear only in those sections of the Qumranic version by which it exceeds its LXX counterpart. In addition, even from a purely chronological consideration, the Hebrew text of Psalm 151 underlying LXX should have preceded the expanded version of 11QPsa. For the LXX of the Book of Psalms, cited already in the Greek version of I Macc. 7:17, certainly is to be dated no later than the second century B.C.E. (when Greek translations of Chronicles and Esther were already in existence). Furthermore, the Hebrew original of Psalm 151 was probably earlier than LXX itself. The Qumranic scroll, however, containing the expanded Hebrew version of this psalm, is only from the middle of the first century B.C.E. Though in its short version Psalm 151 certainly preceded the time of Qumran, and despite its flowing and simple language (insofar as it is portrayed in the corresponding parts of the Qumranic text), which reveals no sign of lateness, it cannot be dated too early. Its uncertain position at the borderline of the canon would indicate that it is one of the late outgrowths of biblical literature. 2. The last lines of 11QPsa, col. xxviii, do not constitute a separate psalm (Ps. 151B) — which, as it were, in LXX was combined with the previous psalm (Ps. 151A), as the editor claims — but, to the contrary, are the second part of one psalm, as in LXX, that was expanded, flattened, and presented in two parts in the Qumranic scroll. The following considerations serve to confirm this argument: The space left in line 12 is not a decisive proof of the existence of two distinct psalms, as the scribe-copyist of 11QPsa, quite frequently, left large gaps within the same literary unit. Moreover, a continuity of subject-matter can be shown to exist between what the editor called Ps. 151A and Ps. 151B. Sanders was apparently led to overlook this continuity, since his interpretation of the psalm leaves no place for a reference to the slaying of Goliath as a praise of David. In fact, however, there is no reason why the playing of musical instruments (as referred to in 'Ps. 151A') and courage in battle (as depicted in 'Ps. 151B') should not be mentioned one alongside the other. Again, the editor's realization that 'both' psalms derive from one author is better stated by concluding that the psalm itself is also one.