Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>]

It is interesting that the LXX also reads BOHQOS in the previous verse, thus 
giving a very neat
parallelism.

We have to say that the beth here is what is known as the "Beth Essentiae". 
This particular use of
beth introduces a predicate and is very common when the predicate is an 
adjectival word, such as a
participle (ie, a verbal adjective). The LXX understands the construction 
this way.

However, yes the plural noun possessive suffix is perplexing. It msy simply 
be a Masoretic error.
This would not be surprising considering that the Masoretic Text omits the 
same participle in the
previous verse while the Greek and Syriac both have it. In other words, it 
seems like it was late
at night when the Masoretic scribe was copying this Psalm. My suggestion is 
in line with the
suggested reading in BHS, viz. to read the suffix as being a singular noun 
possessive. This simply
involves a vowel transplant from the Masoretic qames to a hireq.


Best regards,

Dr GEORGE ATHAS
Lecturer of Biblical Languages
Southern Cross College
Sydney, Australia