¹ Sanders, J. A., “Ps 151 in 11Q Pss,” ZAW 75 (1963), pp. 73–86Google Scholar; for the other two Psalms cf. idem, “Two Non-Canonical Psalms in 11Q Ps^a,” ibid. 76 (1964), pp. 57–75. For references to earlier literature, cf. Sanders, locc. citt. and his notes in the forthcoming edition of the complete Scroll in DJDJ IV (Oxford, 1965). I am greatly indebted to Professor Sanders both for discussing this paper with me and for showing me the proof of DJDJ IV where these texts are reedited after the above preliminary publications. The reader should remember to distinguish carefully between Ps 151A (and 151B), the text type found in the 11Q Psalter, and Ps 151, the recension which combines the earlier Ps 151A and 151B into one psalm, and which is attested at present in LXX and the daughter versions. We should further explain our use of “Ps 154 and 155”; these refer to what used to be called Syriac Apocryphal Psalms II and III. In this system of reference we follow the lead of the Mosul MS mentioned by Sanders; cf. infra, n. 7. See also Sanders, J. A., HTR 59 (1966), pp. 83–94.Google Scholar

² Sanders, J. A., “The Scroll of Psalms (11Q Pss) from Cave 11; A Preliminary Report,” BASOR 165 (Feb. 1962), pp. 11–15.Google Scholar

³ The text is found in Braun, Oskar, “Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I ueber biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhunderts,” Oriens Christianus I (1901), pp. 299–313Google Scholar; cf. esp. pp. 304–7. For the date of the letter see Raphaël J. Bidawid, “Les lettres du Patriarche Nestorien Timothée I,” (Studi e Testi 187, Vatican, 1956), p. 71. Otto Eissfeldt made the palmary comparison with the Qumran finds in TLZ 74 (1949), p. 598. I revert to it here lest the detail of the 200 Psalms of David, then inexplicable, be overlooked. For 3000 Psalms of David, cf. Josephi Hypomnesticon, V, 120.

⁴ Skehan, P. W., “The Apocryphal Psalm 151,” CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 407–9Google Scholar. Other recent discussions are listed in DJDJ IV, p. 54. Cf. now Postscriptum, infra.

⁵ Known so far are the texts of the Ambrosian Syro-Hexaplar, 2 MSS edited by Spoer, H. W. in ZAW 28 (1908), pp. 65–8Google Scholar, and BM Add. 14434 (explicit 1512) apud Schneider, H., Biblica 40 (1959), pp. 202–5Google Scholar. [The MS Camb Or 929, also edited by Schneider loc. cit., represents clearly a secondary revision of the Syro-Hexaplar according to the norm of a current Lucianic text. It is the only MS of which I know to have in v. 3 a reading ɛἰςακοὑɛι, thus correcting back to LXX the characteristic reading found in all the other witnesses of Syr (cf. 1.5 infra); its peculiarities will be neglected in what follows.] Schneider shows the difference of translation-technique between Ps 151 and the rest of the Syro-Hexaplar and rightly suggests that Ps 151 is of different origin; we may observe further that the text taken over predates the Syro-Hexaplar, being attested in a MS of 599 A. D. (cf. Excursus, infra 1.9).

⁶ Pesh Ps 151 was printed in the Polyglots and in the first copies of Lee. Thereafter it was omitted in Lee, Urmia, Mosul and Barnes. For a critical text of this Ps, as it appears in Pesh MSS, we must await the forthcoming Leiden edition. In the checklist of MSS which it is proposed to use for that edition, List of Old Testament Peshitta Manuscripts (Preliminary Issue), ed. The Peshitta Institute, Leiden University (Leiden, Brill, 1964), there are some 4 complete Bibles and 10 Psalters which are explicitly described as containing Ps 151; furthermore, in the appendix to the same list (where MSS that are either lost or will not be used in the edition are mentioned), the presence of Ps 151 is attested of some 65 other Psalters. The earliest MS containing Ps 151 that will be utilised is of the 9th/10th Cent. In view of the generally poor text of the Polyglots (we cite Walton) we can clearly not give readings of group b with any certainty. Accordingly we cite them as Walton, not as Pesh. We do not here enter into the question at what time Ps 151 was introduced into the Peshitta; it is lacking in all early MSS, and scarcely formed part of the Peshitta Psalter in its earliest form.

⁷ For the moment we are reduced to citing the Psalter Mosul 1113 from the admittedly incomplete notation of its readings that Sanders gives; in many cases in our section 1.3 its reading is unpublished as yet. The Leiden checklist mentions another MS combining a biblical text with the 5 Apocryphal Psalms (a MS of the Prophets, Berlin G. S. L. 3122). However, since according to Sanders its text is identical with that found in MSS of group d, we will not consider it here. Further, it presents these Psalms in the same order as the MSS of group d, and not in that of the Mosul MS; cf. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, vol. V (Wiesbaden, 1963), p. 4.

⁸ Again the Leiden checklist gives a list (p. 113) of those MSS which will be utilized in the Leiden edition. Of the MSS which are there put in the dubious category, it not being known whether they contain these Psalms or not, it can now be affirmed that the MS Berl G. S. L. Ms Or Fol 3120 contains them; cf. Verzeichnis der orient-talischen Handschriften in Deutschland, vol. V (Wiesbaden, 1963), p. 119. Jerusalem Gr. Patriarchate Syr 8, on the other hand, lacks these Psalms.

⁹ If c and d form a common recension of Ps 151, it might seem that, when only one of them differs from a + b together with the other, the isolated reading could be dismissed, and therefore only cases where a + b (= LXX) / c + d (= Hebrew) would be acceptable evidence. As will be seen, where the text of Mosul is published, there is no reading where this case would exist. But we will for the present consider even readings where only c or d differ, firstly because of our incomplete knowledge of Mosul, and secondly because it is conceivable that the other group has been subsequently brought back into conformity with the readings of a + b.

¹⁰ We neglect the title here, since its form cannot be established on the present evidence: cf. Walton with Spoer, and with the incipits in Wright's catalogue of the British Museum. The forms in Pesh and Syro-Hexaplar have a close relationship to the title in Greek. The form in Elijah is different (cf. infra 1.7) but is unconnected with the title of Heb Ps 151A. Syriac Psalm titles are notoriously shifting.

¹¹ Superficially one might say that Elijah agrees with Hebrew in not having a 3rd-person suffix. But (cf. 1.7 infra) this is one of the cases where all Syriac readings show common dependence on LXX in their choice of the noun , whereas the earliest form of LXX agreed with its Hebrew source in reading a completely different noun. Against that evidence, the alternation “anointing”/“his anointing” will be dismissed as an inner-Syriac development.

¹² For two other cases where Syriac depends on a less original reading of LXX cf. infra 1.7 on ναγγɛλɛῖ and χρςɛως αὐτ∘.

¹³ Elijah's text varies at three points from this text; but since none of his modifications corresponds to the original Hebrew, or to readings attested in the Greek apparatus, we therefore take these as inner-Syriac developments (for which numerous parallels can be cited), partly stylistic, partly attempting to improve (a little) a poor sense.

¹⁴ Cf. Kilpatrick, G. D., Goettingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 215 (1963), p. 14 f.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The case of Ben Sira is closely similar to that of Ps 151 (except for the anomalous relationship between Heb and Syr), and ceteris paribus the same canon will hold.

¹⁶ Of course, certain banal variants must be excepted from this rule (e.g., the presence of waw at the beginning of a hemistich). We have considered already the prima facie possibility that readings in the later Syriac tradition might have shown such revision to the norm of the Hebrew, but we have shown that there seems no evidence of such revision.

¹⁷ Rahlfs' neglect of the Anglo-Saxon version reported by Fabricius-Harless (Bibliotheca Graeca ⁴ [1793] III, p. 749) is venial — in fact the report may be misleading. The Anglo-Saxon interlinear glosses on the Roman Psalter (and thus Ps 151) are well known; cf. The Oldest English Texts, ed. by Henry Sweet (Early English Text Society Publications 83), London, 1885, p. 401. But is this what Fabricius-Harless refer to? Their version is in a Bodleian MS, but Ker's, N. R.Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon, Oxford, 1957Google Scholar, does not mention any Bodleian MS as containing even this interlinear Gloss on Ps 151. As for what can properly be described as versions, Ps 151 is not found in either the prose or the poetic version of the Anglo-Saxon Psalter.

En passant, a testimonium may be added to the scanty list of ancient testimonia to this Psalm given in Fabricius-Harless loc. cit. In Paris Coislin. Gr. 275 there is a Psalms Commentary which may be by Diodore of Tarsus. It concludes with a commentary on Ps 151 which is in any case not by the author of the preceding commentary, whoever he may be. It is not yet edited; cf. Maries, Louis, Etudespreliminaires a Vedition de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes (Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1933), p. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Until the critical edition of the Ethiopic appears, certainty on the smaller points will be unattainable. I cite from Walton, the only one of the editions to which I have access, but in cases I have used also an 18th (?) cent. Psalter in the possession of Duke University, as a rough and ready method of seeing where the Ethiopic tradition is divided and as yet unsure. It may be of interest to draw attention to the fact that Ps 151 is used in the Ethiopian coronation ritual; cf. BSOAS 27 (1965), p. 20.

¹⁹ Compare this secondary “improvement” with an analogous one in the apparatus to the Gallican Psalter “et quis adnuntiabit Domino meo (+ de me)”; cf. Biblia Sacra juxta vulgatam Latinam versionem, X, Liber Psalmorum, Rome, 1953. We cite Ga(llican) without implying that the Gallican Psalter necessarily had Ps 151 in the beginning, but merely as a siglum for those MSS of Ga that do have it.

²⁰ The Ethiopic text in Walton does not have this addition but conforms to Gk. The Duke MS has it but in the confusing order c' a' b '. Eth may have borrowed this, as so much, from the Arabic, but it survives in Eth with better sense than in the Arabic itself. See also Postscriptum, infra.

²¹ In Pseudo-Philo David takes seven stones.

²² דעין √דעי⟩דעין √הדע Noth, M., “Die fuenf syrisch ueberlieferten apokryphen Psalmen” ZAW 48 (1930), p. 16.Google Scholar

²³ עכש “grain” does not seem likely to be of much help. In a letter Sanders objects that, although “sated” in English suggests gluttony, in Hebrew one may well express a desire to be satisfied with blessing, good pleasure, etc.; cf. esp. Dt 33, 22. To translate “at their banquets, as they satisfy themselves on Wisdom, She is mentioned,” would give, it is true, a more acceptable sense; but it may be doubted whether the verse can mean that, and furthermore הךמאג is lacking in point and anticlimactic.

²⁴ The second hemistich, again, is possible but lacking in point; one is tempted to improve it by reading, for וידי דכחכ,ודדהי דכחכ “in common they glorify her” or ודחי דכחכ “they rejoice with loud tumult,” — or even the pausal וךדחי

²⁵ Waw at the start of hemistichs is notoriously subject to change, and is (apart from v. 17) neglected in the above apparatus. Heb and Syr differ in v. 7 ליכשהל (in v. 8 is stylistically necessary in Syriac); v. 11 בידקמכ, ןשדמכ, חדזטקכ v. 13 הלכוא לע v. 15 לוכמ. Contrarily the two texts agree in v. 3 םימימחלז; v. 4 לאז; ibid. ומדאתחו; v. 6 דתסלו; v. 9 וחדאתחו; v. 10 םדאו; v. 12 להקמו; v. 13 המחוחש לעו v. 17 לעו; v. 19 סםושו. Furthermore the correspondences but prevent certainty in conjecturing the precise Hebrew counterparts to Syr in the missing end of the Psalm; Sanders' suggestions are plausible.

²⁶ We cite by Sanders' verse numbers for convenience; Skehan's more consistent following of the acrostic pattern (CBQ 27 [1965], pp. 1–5) gives a structure which personally we prefer.

²⁷ ZAW 48 (1930), pp. 12–13.

²⁸ Syr cannot be considered to attest the presence or absence in its archetype of Heb חא (cf. הכדובכ חא, יחלאש חא,הכיטםשמ חא and הוהי יהארק) Likewise it is of no value for the presence or absence of waw at the beginnings of hemistichs; in fact in this Psalm (contrast Ps 154) the two traditions coincide, except for and [“^*ינכמטס ] (the latter being guaranteed by the acrostic).

²⁹ For its liturgical use in Syr, cf. BM Add. 17223, where Pss 144–151 are prescribed for the fourth Nocturn. It is not used in the current Chaldean Breviary.

³⁰ This translation is put forward tentatively; alternatively one might suggest: “Do not the mountains… the hills… the trees …the flocks…? But who can fully relate…?” Many other suggestions have been made; cf. Sanders DJDJ IV, Skehan [CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 407–9] and I. Rabinowitz [ZA W 76 (1964), pp. 193–200]. The uncommon frequency of the defective orthography (in conflict with the normal practice of 11Q Psa) need not imply that the scribe of 11Q Psa copied this Psalm from a different MS from that used in the rest of his scroll, but merely that the text of Ps 151A was at some time transmitted apart from that of the Biblical Psalter, and so did not undergo with it all the orthographic revisions that the Psalter did; cf. W. F. Albright's suggestion of a 7th-6th century B.C. date in History, Archaeology and Christian Humanism (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 35, n. 65.

³¹ Auswahl pseudo-davidischer Psalmen arabisch und deutsch herausgegeben von Ove Chr. Krarup (C. E. G. Gad, Köbenhavn, 1909), pp. 25 and The Arabic text is hard to find; so we reproduce it here:

The whole work is unedited; from the samples available a certain polemical attitude, and a certain note of criticism of the canonical Psalms, is clear. The correction of Ps 151A by the Arabic text above would be quite characteristic of these “anti-salms”. We cannot, however, prove dependence on a Syriac version of Ps 151 A. Alternatively, since the author was a renegade Jew, he might have had direct knowledge of the Hebrew (rediscovered in 786 A.D.); unfortunately the Cairo Geniza has preserved only a few of the odd works circulating in mediaeval Jewry.

³² This parallel is far closer than that in Qur'an Sura 34, 10 etc. (mountains praising God), which might otherwise have been considered an acceptable source.