Using the Pe–Ayin Order of the Abecedaries of Ancient Israel to Date the Book of Psalms

Abstract

Various abecedaries with the unusual order of the letter pe preceding the letter ayin have been discovered in ancient Israel. These abecedaries date from 1200–600 bce. The pe–ayin order was already known from the acrostics of Lamentations 2–4, and from the Septuagint text of the acrostic of Proverbs 31. Scholars have not appreciated the significance of the pe–ayin order as an aid to dating the Psalms. The acrostic of Psalm 34 makes much more sense under the assumption that the pe verse preceded the ayin verse, and it seems that all the acrostics in the first book of Psalms (9–10; 25; 34; and 37) originally reflected the pe–ayin order. The acrostics in the fifth book of Psalms (111; 112; 119; and 145) reflect the ayin–pe order, an order that seems only to have arisen in Israel in the post-exilic period. The differing orders in the first and fifth books help to confirm an early date for the first book and a late date for the fifth book.

Keywords

Abecedaries biblical acrostics dating of Psalms

1. Introduction

Much has been written over the centuries on the dating of the book of Psalms. The lack of reference to historical events makes it hard to date most of the psalms. Although the prefix ‭ל‬, attached to the name of an individual, is found in the superscription to most of the psalms, the precise connotation of this prefix is ambiguous.¹

Jewish tradition divides the 150 psalms into five books.² This division is already reflected in the Bible, as certain verses seem to serve as the divisions between the books.³

Almost certainly, the books originated as independent collections.⁴ This is seen, for example, by the fact that Psalm 53 is an almost identical repetition of Psalm 14, and Psalm 70 (a superscription plus five verses) is an almost identical repetition of Ps. 40.14–18.⁵

There is a widespread view that the first three books are the earlier collections. Among these, the first book is often viewed as the earliest.⁶ On the other hand, in the fifth book, several psalms refer to the Babylonian exile and the subsequent return. See, for example, Ps. 137.1 (‘By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and also wept, when we remembered Zion’) and Ps. 126.1 (‘when the Lord bought back those that returned to Zion’). These psalms are undoubtedly post-exilic.

The purpose of this article is to show how various recently discovered ancient abecedaries with the unusual order of the letter pe preceding the letter ayin help to confirm an early date for the first book and a late date for the fifth book.⁷ Scholars have not appreciated the significance of these abecedaries as an aid to dating the book of Psalms.

2. The Evidence for the Pe–Ayin Order

The pe preceding ayin order was known even before the discoveries in Israel from recent decades. In the acrostics in Lamentations 2–4 (but not in the acrostic of Lam. 1), the verses that begin with pe precede the verses that begin with ayin.⁸ Moreover, in the two earliest texts of the Septuagint of Prov. 31.10–31, the translation of the pe verse precedes the translation of the ayin verse. These texts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, date from the fourth century CE, hundreds of years earlier than the earliest Hebrew texts of Proverbs.⁹

The relevant archaeological discoveries of recent decades from the land of Israel are as follows:

In the Dead Sea text of Lamentations 1, the pe verse precedes the ayin verse.¹⁰

In 1976, a potsherd was discovered at Izbet Sartah, in Western Samaria. The potsherd had five lines of Hebrew¹¹ writing on it, one of which was an abecedary.¹² In this abecedary, the pe precedes the ayin. Based on the shape of the letters, the writing can be dated to about 1200 BCE.¹³ (The Izbet Sartah abecedary reads from left to right; the writing direction was not yet fixed in this early period.) There is a consensus that Izbet Sartah was an Israelite settlement in this period.¹⁴

Also noteworthy in this abecedary is that the ḥet precedes the zayin. There are grounds to suspect that this was a scribal slip,¹⁵ but this same order is found in the Tel Zayit abecedary (see below).

During excavations in 1975–76 at Kuntillet ʿAjrud, a site in the northeast Sinai, a jar fragment was discovered that included three Hebrew abecedaries in which the pe precedes the ayin.¹⁶ The site dates to approximately 800 BCE. The opinion of the archaeologist who led the excavations is that the site was established at the order of King Jehoash of the northern kingdom of Israel, after he defeated King Amaziah of Judah.¹⁷

In 2005, a Hebrew abecedary inscribed on a stone was discovered at Tel Zayit, a site north of Lachish. The stone had been used in the construction of a wall belonging to a tenth-century BCE structure. This abecedary seems to follow the order of pe preceding ayin.¹⁸ Most probably, Tel Zayit was part of the area of the tribe of Judah in the tenth century BCE.

(The Tel Zayit abecedary departs from the traditional order in three other instances: [1] waw precedes he, [2] ḥet precedes zayin, and [3] lamed precedes kaph. As to the last, there is evidence that the author of the abecedary realized that this was a mistake.)

In recent years, another ostracon with three Hebrew abecedaries with pe preceding ayin has come to light.¹⁹ The provenance of the ostracon is unknown, but the writing can be dated to the late seventh or early sixth century BCE.

The abecedaries mentioned above are the only abecedaries in the traditional aleph–bet scheme²⁰ that have been discovered in ancient Israel that date from the period of the Judges and the First Temple and that span the letters ayin and pe.²¹ Pe precedes ayin in every one of them.²² As we have seen, these abecedaries come from different regions in ancient Israel and not merely from one area. (In contrast, all the ancient abecedaries discovered to date in Western Semitic languages from this same period from regions outside of Israel reflect the ayin–pe order.²³ These are: [1] several thirteenth-century BCE Ugaritic abecedaries from Ras Shamra, on the Mediterranean coast of North Syria,²⁴ and [2] an eighth-century BCE inscription in Aramaic from Tell Halaf, in northeastern Syria.²⁵)

3. Distinguishing between Early Psalms and Late Psalms in Light of the Pe–Ayin Order

Now let us look at the acrostics found in the book of Psalms.²⁶ Alphabetical acrostics are found here at Psalms 9–10;²⁷ 25; 34; 37; 111; 112; 119 (each letter eight times); and 145.

The key to our analysis is Psalm 34. Here, vv. 17 and 18 have troubled biblical commentators throughout the ages. In v. 17, we are told:

The face (‭ינפ‬) of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.

Yet immediately following this, at v. 18, we are told without explanation:

They cried (‭ןקעצ‬) and the Lord heard, and delivered them from all their troubles.

Why should God listen to and save the evildoers, when we have just been told that he wants to ‘cut off the remembrance of them from the earth’?²⁸ However, if we make the assumption that pe preceded ayin here, as suggested by the archaeological finds, the ones whom God listens to and saves are not the evildoers, but the righteous:

v. 17: The face (‭ינפ‬) of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.

v. 16: The eyes (‭יניע‬) of the Lord are toward the righteous, and his ears to their cry.

v. 18: They cried (‭וקעצ‬) and the Lord heard, and delivered them from all their troubles.

The theological problem disappears and the sequence of verses makes perfect sense!²⁹

If we can agree that pe must have preceded ayin in the original version of Psalm 34, it is time to proceed further. Did pe originally precede ayin in all the other acrostics in Psalms? This is very unlikely. Psalm 119 is an eightfold acrostic. Eight complete verses would have had to have been rearranged if this psalm once reflected an older pe–ayin order that was later changed to ayin–pe.³⁰

The acrostics in the book of Psalms are found only in the first book, which comprises Psalms 1–41, and in the fifth book, which comprises Psalms 107–150. I propose that all the acrostics in the first book were originally written with the pe–ayin order.

One factor that points to the antiquity of the first book is that most of the acrostics in this book are missing letters.³¹ The acrostic that runs through Psalms 9 and 10 is missing seven of the 22 letters; the acrostic of Psalm 25 is missing a qoph, and has a resh twice;³² and the acrostic of Psalm 37 is missing an ayin. All of this suggests that we are dealing with acrostics composed at such an early stage that their texts have no longer been accurately preserved. Also, the absence of a verse for waw in Psalms 25 and 34 perhaps suggests that we are dealing with acrostics composed at an early stage, a stage when the letter waw was not consistently viewed as deserving a place in a Hebrew acrostic. (Waw is an unusual letter in Hebrew. Almost no Hebrew words began with waw in the biblical period.³³)

In contrast, the acrostics in the fifth book are perfectly, or almost perfectly, preserved. The acrostics of Psalms 111 and 112 are complete, and the acrostic of Psalm 119 is complete, with every letter repeated eight times. The lone possible imperfection is Psalm 145, which lacks a nun verse. However, the fact that all the other acrostics in the fifth book are complete suggests that the nun verse is not missing here, but was omitted intentionally.³⁴

As mentioned earlier, it is in the fifth book that we find phrases such as ‘By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and also wept, when we remembered Zion’ (Ps. 137.1), and ‘when the Lord bought back those that returned to Zion’ (Ps. 126.1).³⁵ Moreover, the post-exilic form of some of the language in the fifth book has already been observed.³⁶

Interestingly, an eighth- or seventh-century bce Aramaic text from Deir ‘Alla (the biblical Succoth, on the east bank of the Jordan River) records the following sequence of letters: aleph, bet, gimmel, daleth, zayin, and ḥet. Both he and waw were left out. See J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), pp. 267 and 285.

I suggest that the difference in the era of composition of the first and fifth books is reflected in the alphabetical order originally employed in each. I propose that the acrostics of the first book, composed in the pre-monarchic or First Temple periods, were all written with the pe–ayin order. The acrostics in the fifth book (Pss. 111; 112; 119; and 145), composed in the sixth century BCE or later, were all written with the subsequently arising ayin–pe order.

Can I prove that the acrostics of the first book were all written with the pe–ayin order?

Regarding the acrostic that spans Psalms 9 and 10, it is evident that our text is corrupt. The acrostic only includes 15 of the 22 letters, and is missing all the letters from mem through ṣade.³⁷ But many scholars believe that the words ‭ןהיפ‬ (10.7, second word) and ‭ויניע‬ (10.8, third to last word) were once the first words of pe and ayin verses in the pe–ayin order in the original text.³⁸

Regarding the acrostic of Psalm 25, the verses present no difficulty in their present order. The relevant verses read:

v. 14: The counsel (‭רוס‬) of the Lord is with those that fear him, and his covenant, to make them know it.

v. 15: My eyes (‭יניע‬) are always toward the Lord, for he will bring my feet out of the net.

v. 16: Turn (‭הנפ‬) to me and be gracious to me, for I am solitary and afflicted.

v. 17: The troubles (‭חורצ‬) of my heart have spread; bring me out of my distress.

Let us see what happens when we switch the order:

v. 14: The counsel (‭רוס‬) of the Lord is with those that fear him, and his covenant, to make them know it.

v. 16: Turn (‭הנפ‬) to me and be gracious to me, for I am solitary and afflicted.

v. 15: My eyes (‭יניע‬) are always toward the Lord, for he will bring my feet out of the net.

v. 17: The troubles (‭תורצ‬) of my heart have spread; bring me out of my distress.

In the new order, v. 15 flows easily after v. 16. More importantly, we now see a parallel between the second halves of the newly adjacent vv. 15 and 17; ‘for he will bring my feet out of the net’ parallels ‘bring me out of my distress.’

Critically, Psalm 25 parallels Psalm 34 in two significant ways: both lack a waw verse and both add a pe verse at their conclusion.³⁹ This makes it very likely that Psalm 25 originally paralleled Psalm 34 in its pe–ayin order as well.⁴⁰

Regarding the acrostic of Psalm 37, this is an acrostic where the ayin section is missing.

However, close examination of the verses reveals that the section for the samekh is unusually long.⁴¹ Moreover, the Septuagint on the samekh section even has an additional phrase not found in the Hebrew.⁴² Almost certainly, there was an ayin verse here once and some of the original text has been lost.⁴³ Of all the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, why is it that the main textual problem arises in the context of the ayin verse?⁴⁴ Probability suggests that it has something to do with the issue of the pe–ayin order.⁴⁵ I strongly suspect that if the correct text of this psalm is ever established, it will end up being one in which the pe preceded the ayin.⁴⁶

4. A New Understanding of Proverbs 31.25–26

If we accept the text of the Septuagint of Prov. 31.25–26 as preserving the order of the original Hebrew, the pe–ayin order is reflected here as well. This acrostic in Proverbs even makes better sense with the pe–ayin order.⁴⁷ In the traditional order, vv. 24–26 read as follows:

v. 24: (‭ס‬) She makes cloaks and sells them; she delivers belts to the merchant.

v. 25: (‭ע‬) Might and splendor are her clothing; she laughs to the last day.

v. 26: (‭פ‬) She opens her mouth with wisdom; the law of kindness is on her tongue.

The woman of valor laughs to the last day because she makes cloaks and sells them, delivers belts to the merchant, and is clothed with might and splendor. But if the original order here was pe–ayin, the qualities that enable her to laugh to the last day would also include her wisdom and kindness—a much more profound description of her nobility!

5. Summary and Conclusion

As discussed above, every known Hebrew abecedary from the period of the Judges and the period of the First Temple records the pe before the ayin (if the abecedary is long enough to include these letters). I believe that the pe–ayin order was not just a variant order,⁴⁸ but that it was the only order in use in Israel in these early periods. This order is reflected, if we accept the Dead Sea text of Lam. 1.16–17, in all the acrostics in the book of Lamentations.⁴⁹ If we accept the text of the Septuagint of Prov. 31.25–26 as preserving the order of the original Hebrew, the pe–ayin order is reflected here as well.⁵⁰ I believe that all the acrostics in the first book of Psalms, almost certainly its oldest section, originally reflected the pe–ayin order.

Recently, a scholar of paleography has analyzed the surviving Hebrew inscriptions from the eighth through sixth centuries BCE and observed that when samekh is immediately followed by pe, the two letters are consistently written the same way in relation to one other.⁵¹ Based on this, a subsequent scholar has theorized that the Israelite scribes of this period may have been trained in an order in which samekh was followed by pe.⁵² This would be further evidence for the pe–ayin order.

Admittedly, as mentioned earlier, the earliest Western Semitic abecedaries reflect the ayin–pe order. These abecedaries are in Ugaritic (from Ras Shamra, Syria) and date to the thirteenth century BCE. But it is evident from our study that a different order existed in early Israel and that the order of letters was not as fixed in earliest times as we imagine it to have been.⁵³ Note also that there are now two abecedaries in ancient Israel in which the ḥet precedes the zayin.

Finally, we must explain what led the ayin–pe order to begin to be used in Israel in the post-exilic period. A good guess is that ayin preceded pe in the Aramaic alphabet in use in Babylonia, and that this led the exiled Judeans to use this order in Israel upon their return.⁵⁴

It is fascinating how much we can learn from the order of two letters!

Footnotes

1.

Does it express authorship by the individual named? Or that the psalm is connected to some event in the life of the person named? Or that the psalm is dedicated to the person named? Many other possibilities have been suggested. See, e.g., N.M. Sarna, ‘Book of Psalms’, in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), XIII, pp. 1303–22 (1313), and J. Goldingay, Psalms, I (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), pp. 26–27. Moreover, the meaning of the prefix ‭ל‬ probably varies throughout the various superscriptions. It is also possible that some of the superscriptions were added long after the original composition. Seventy-three of the 150 psalms are designated le-David.

2.

See, e.g., b. Qid. 33a. See also R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 112–13. A text from Qumran Cave 1 refers to ‭םישטוח םירפס‬. See DJD, I (1955), p. 132. This may be an early allusion to the division of the psalms into five books, but it may merely be a reference to the Pentateuch.

3.

Pss. 41.14; 72.18–20; 89.53; and 106.47–48.

4.

R. Alter, The Book of Psalms (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007), p. xix, and Sarna, ‘Book of Psalms’, p. 1308.

5.

Also, 72.20, at the conclusion of the second book, reads: kalu tefillot David ben Yishai (= the prayers of David son of Yishai are finished). It seems very unlikely that an individual who was aware of the 18 psalms connected to David in the subsequent chapters would have written such a line.

6.

For example, Sarna (‘Book of Psalms’, p. 1309) writes: ‘the earliest collection is undoubtedly Book I, or rather Psalms 3–41 within it’.

One of the arguments sometimes made to support the antiquity of the first book is that, with the exception of Pss. 1; 2; 10; and 33, all of the psalms in the first book have superscriptions connecting them to David. (Almost certainly, the reason such a superscription is lacking in Ps. 10 is that it was once united with Ps. 9; it is a continuation of one long acrostic. As to Ps. 33, it has a Davidic superscription in the Septuagint.) In contrast, in books two through five, only 18 have superscriptions connecting them to David. Of course, this argument is not compelling.

7.

In the Latin alphabet that we use today, ‘o’ precedes ‘p’. This also reflects the traditional ayin–pe order. The Latin alphabet ultimately derives from the same source as the Hebrew one. The letter ‘o’ is the parallel in the Latin alphabet to the letter ayin. (The letter ayin, in its earliest stage, was drawn to look like an eye).

The letter pe seems to have its origin in either the representation of a mouth (peh) or a corner (peah). Since it is adjacent to ayin, another body part, the former is more likely.

8.

The fifth chapter consists of exactly 22 verses, just like the first, second, and fourth chapters, even though it is not an acrostic. In the third chapter, there are three verses for each letter.

9.

In the other main witness to the text of the Septuagint, Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century CE), the ayin verse precedes the pe verse. Most likely, this reflects a later conformity of the Greek text to the Masoretic text.

10.

DJD, XVI (2000), p. 234. This text (4Q Lam) preserves a considerable number of readings that appear to be superior to those of the Masoretic text (p. 230).

With regard to the second and third chapters of the book of Lamentations, the Dead Sea scrolls only include 2.5 and 3.53–62, so there is not enough of a text to confirm the Masoretic pe–ayin order. The pe–ayin order is confirmed in the Dead Sea texts from the fourth chapter (although the texts of the relevant verses, 4.16–17, are very fragmentary). See DJD, III (1962), pp. 176–78.

11.

I am calling this writing ‘Hebrew’ because it was likely composed by an Israelite. I am conscious of the fact that paleography scholars would not use the term ‘Hebrew’ here, since it was not until the ninth century bce that a ‘Hebrew’ script evolved that was distinct from the Phoenician script. The same issue of terminology arises with respect to the find at Tel Zayit.

12.

On the Izbet Sartah abecedary, see, e.g., M. Kochavi, ‘An Ostracon of the Period of the Judges from ‘Izbet Ṣarṭah’, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 1–13; A. Demsky, ‘A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of the Judges and its Implications for the History of the Alphabet’, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 14–27; and A. Demsky and M. Kochavi, ‘An Alphabet from the Days of the Judges’, BAR 4.3 (1978), pp. 23–30.

13.

Kochavi, ‘An Ostracon’, p. 12, and Demsky and Kochavi, ‘An Alphabet’, p. 24. Three occupational strata were found at Izbet Sartah, but the potsherd was found in a silo that was unattached to any house, so we do not know in which stratum this particular silo was used. The earliest stratum probably dates to the late thirteenth century bce. The latest stratum probably dates to the tenth century bce.

14.

See, e.g., W.G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 83. The Philistine site of Aphek is to the west of Izbet Sartah. It is widely believed that Izbet Sartah is the biblical Ebenezer. (On Ebenezer, see, e.g., 1 Sam. 4:1.)

In the unlikely event that the Izbet Sartah, Kuntillet ʿAjrud, and Tel Zayit abecedaries were inscribed by non-Israelites, these abecedaries would still be relevant. The Israelites utilized the same alphabet as their neighbors in Canaan and the order of the letters would presumably have been the same.

15.

See Demsky, ‘A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary’, pp. 17–18.

16.

See Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012), pp. 102–103, for the most accurate photograph and transcriptions. Above these three abecedaries is another, largely incomplete, that does not include pe or ayin.

17.

Meshel, Kuntillet, pp. 66–69. The nature and function of the site (two buildings) has been much debated. Almost all of the fifty inscriptions discovered at the site are in the Hebrew language and script, like the abecedaries. Four inscriptions are in the Phoenician script, but in the Hebrew language. While the approximate date of the site is clear, that it was established by King Jehoash of the northern kingdom of Israel is merely Meshel's educated conjecture based in part on the strong northern influence found at the site; no inscriptions at the site mention King Jehoash. King Jehoash's defeat of King Amaziah is described at 2 Kgs 14 and 2 Chron. 25.

18.

See R.E. Tappy, P.K. McCarter, M.J. Lundberg, and B. Zuckerman, ‘An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth B.C.E. from the Judaean Shephelah’, BASOR 344 (2006), pp. 5–46 (26). Some of the letters on this abecedary are less visible than others, and the pe and ayin are among the less visible ones.

19.

See M. Heide, ‘Impressions from a New Alphabetic Ostracon in the Context of (Un)Provenanced Inscriptions: Idiosyncrasy of a Genius Forger or a Master Scribe?’, in M. Lubetski (ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 148–82. Although the ostracon is unprovenanced, the prevailing view is that it is genuine. Supposedly, it came from the debris of the Temple Mount.

20.

An abecedary in cuneiform from the thirteenth century bce was found in 1933 at Beit Shemesh. However, this abecedary follows an entirely different scheme, one that corresponds to the scheme found in South Arabian inscriptions from the first few centuries ce. In this alternative scheme (one that includes more than 22 letters), the order begins: h, l, ḥ, m. See W. Horowitz and T. Oshima, Cuneiform in Canaan and the Land of Israel: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University, 2006), pp. 157–60. It was not until 1987 that it was realized that the Beit Shemesh find was an abecedary. An abecedary in this same scheme was found in 1988 at Ras Shamra (RS 88.2215). These discoveries are forcing scholars to rethink many of their assumptions about the history of the alphabet. See Horowitz and Oshima, Cuneiform, pp. 159–60.

21.

Other Hebrew First Temple period abecedaries have been found, but they are much shorter. For example, ‭הרגבא‬ was found incised on one of the steps of the palace at Lachish. Other finds in ancient Israel include: ‭ךגבא, טחזוה‬ (see the note below), ‭חזו‬, and ‭טחז‬. Many of these are collected in A. Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l'ancien Israël (Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981).

22.

There is an eighth-century bce inscription from Lachish that Emil Puech believes follows the ayin–pe order. But André Lemaire rejects Puech's readings as unsubstantiated. See D. Ussishkin, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (5 vols.; Tel Aviv: Emery & Clare Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2004), IV, pp. 2116–17. (This section of the work was written by Lemaire.) According to Lemaire, the letters ‭טחזוה‬ are readable on the middle of the first line, and the second line includes ‭רקצ‬, followed immediately by ‭בא‬. However, the letters preceding ‭רקצ‬ on the second line are unclear.

23.

Ancient Semitic languages are traditionally divided into three branches: Eastern, Western, and Southern. The Eastern Semitic languages (Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian) were written in Sumerian cuneiform, which was not an alphabetic cuneiform script. Southern Semitic languages (South Arabian, Ethiopian, and Arabic) have a different alphabet order altogether.

24.

See M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín (eds.), The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2nd edn, 1995), pp. 490–95. In the several such abecedaries in the aleph–bet scheme that have been discovered that are long enough to span ayin and pe, the cuneiform sign for the ayin precedes the cuneiform sign for the pe. (One abecedary was discovered in Ugarit that follows the alternative alphabetical scheme that begins h, l, ḥ, m. See RS 88.2215.)

25.

See R. Degen, ‘Ein aramäisches Alphabet von Tell Halaf’, in R. Degen, W.W. Müller and W. Röllig, Neue Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, III (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1978), pp. 1–9.

26.

A partial acrostic, up to kaph, is found at the beginning of the first chapter of Nahum. Due to textual corruption, however, it is no longer in its original form. There are no alphabetical acrostics in the Pentateuch.

27.

These two chapters together constitute one long acrostic. However, seven of the 22 letters are missing.

28.

It has been suggested that an explanation is provided in v. 19: ‘The Lord is close to those with a broken heart and saves those with a crushed spirit’. This perhaps suggests that the evildoers were depressed by their actions and changed their ways. However, if this is the explanation, it is stated very indirectly by the text. Also, we would have expected it to be stated earlier, before the acceptance of the outcry was described in v. 18.

29.

The suggestion that these verses need to be re-ordered was made long ago. See, e.g., J. Wellhausen, The Book of Psalms: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; London: David Nutt, 1895), p. 81 (citing the German Bible scholar Hermann Hupfeld, d. 1866). See also S.J. Rapoport (d. 1867), Erekh Millin, II (Warsaw, 1914), pp. 42–43. The suggestion is repeated by many modern scholars. It is also perhaps supported by Ps. 34.7. There is no Dead Sea text of Ps. 34.16–17.

Long ago, Pseudo-Jonathan Targum understood that the evildoers could not be the subject of v. 18; it inserted the word ‭איקידצ‬ (‘righteous ones’) into the translation of this verse.

30.

That there was a re-ordering in Ps. 145 also seems unlikely because the ayin and pe lines in Ps. 145 seem to be parallel to Ps. 104.27–28.

31.

See similarly P.W. Gaebelein, Jr, ‘Psalm 34 and Other Biblical Acrostics: Evidence from the Aleppo Codex’, Maarav 5–6 (1990), pp. 127–43 (139).

32.

Some characterize Ps. 25 as missing a bet, but probably the second word of 25.2 (‭ךב‬) counts as the bet, with the first word being considered only an introduction.

33.

For example, the biblical concordance of Solomon Mandelkern lists only three: ‭וו‬ (‘hook’), ‭רזו‬ (only at Prov. 21.8) and ‭רלו‬. See his Sefer Heikal Haqodesh (Lipsiae: Veit, 1896), p. 345.

34.

The nun verse found in the Dead Sea, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta texts of Ps. 145 should therefore be considered a later addition. The nun verse found in these sources is suspicious for other reasons as well. See R. Kimelman, ‘Psalm 145: Theme, Structure, and Impact’, JBL 113 (1994), pp. 37–58 (50). Content-wise, there is no indication that any verse is missing here.

35.

See also Ps. 147.2: ‘The Lord builds Jerusalem; he gathers the dispersed of Israel’.

36.

See, e.g., A. Hurvitz, Bein Lashon le-Lashon (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1972), and The Identification of Post-Exilic Psalms by Means of Linguistic Criteria (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1966). Hurvitz focuses on the difference between the Hebrew of the early biblical period and the Hebrew of the late biblical period (c. 600–400 bce) He points to Ps. 103 in the fourth book and Pss. 117; 119; 124; 125; 133; 144; and 145 in the fifth book as the psalms that have the largest concentration of late biblical period Hebrew elements. He suggests that these psalms were likely composed in the late biblical period. It is very easy to extrapolate from the specific psalms pointed to by Hurvitz to further psalms and to suggest that they too were composed in the late biblical period. For example, Pss. 124 and 125 are part of a section of fifteen ‘Song of Ascents’ (Pss. 120–134) that were all probably composed around the same time. Ps. 117 is part of a section that runs from Ps. 111 through Ps. 117; each of these psalms (except for Ps. 114) begins or ends with the word halleluyah. In addition, Pss. 135, and 146 through 150, all start and end with the word halleluyah, evidencing their relation to Pss. 111 through 117. The word halleluyah is only found in the fourth and fifth books of Psalms. It is found nowhere else in the Bible.

The division between the fourth and fifth books of Psalms is considered by most scholars to be artificial. See, e.g., Alter, Book of Psalms, p. xix, and Sarna, ‘Book of Psalms’, p. 1308.

37.

The acrostic that spans Pss. 9 and 10 is much less even with respect to the average unit length for each section than are the other acrostic psalms in the Bible. This also suggests that the acrostic is textually corrupt. See P.C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 129.

There are Dead Sea and Naḥal Ḥever texts of limited portions of Pss. 9 and 10, but these closely parallel the Masoretic text. See DJD, XXIII (1998), pp. 54 and 66, and DJD, XXXVIII (2000), pp. 148–51. Nor does the Septuagint help in restoring the original acrostic.

38.

The suggestion that ‭והיפ‬ was the first word of the pe verse, and ‭ויניע‬ the first word of a subsequent ayin verse was made long ago. See, e.g., C.A. Briggs and E.G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), I, p. 70. It is still widely accepted today. See, e.g., Demsky, ‘A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary’, p. 18; H. Eshel and J. Strugnell, ‘Alphabetical Acrostics in Pre-Tannaitic Hebrew’, cbq 62 (2000), pp. 441–58 (443); and Tappy et al., ‘An Abecedary’, p. 26.

39.

Also, the added pe verse is from the same root (‭הרפ‬) in both. Also, each letter of the alphabet is assigned only one verse in Pss. 25 and 34. This is unlike the acrostics of Pss. 9–10 and 37, in which there is (usually) an acrostic verse followed by a verse that begins with any letter.

The reason for the added pe verse has engendered much speculation. One interesting suggestion is that the addition of this verse enables the acrostic to begin with aleph, have a lamed in the middle, and end with pe, alluding to the word aleph, a word that symbolizes the alphabet. See D.N. Freedman, ‘Acrostic Poems in the Hebrew Bible: Alphabetic and Otherwise’, CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 408–31 (416 n. 8).

40.

The Dead Sea texts include a text of the first two words of 25.15, but there is no text of the surrounding verses.

41.

It spans three verses, 37.27–29, while the sections for all the other letters span only one or two verses.

42.

It is Ps. 36 in the Septuagint. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus have the added phrase: αμωμoι ∊κδικηθησ; Codex Alexandrinus has the added phrase: ανoμoι δέ∊κδιωχθήσoνται. Perhaps the Hebrew phrase being translated here began with ayin, and perhaps there were additional words in the Hebrew that were lost as well.

43.

The observation that the samekh verse in Ps. 37 is unusually long and that there was once an ayin verse here was made long ago. See, for example, Wellhausen, Book of Psalms, p. 82.

Many have suggested that the ayin of ‭םלועל‬, in the middle of v. 28, is the ayin of the acrostic. But the letter of the acrostic is almost always the letter that starts the verse or something very close to that. (In Ps. 25.2, the first letter of the second word of the verse is the letter of the acrostic, and in Ps. 37.39, the taw of ‭תעושתו‬, the first word of the verse, is the letter of the acrostic.) The letter of the acrostic is never from the middle of the verse. Moreover, nowhere else in the biblical acrostics is a letter after an initial lamed used as the acrostic letter. (The utilization of the taw of ‭תעושתו‬, after an initial waw, is much easier to accept.) That the Septuagint has an added phrase here suggests that there was some loss of text.

44.

There are other abnormalities in this acrostic, but they are minor. See Eshel and Strugnell, ‘Alphabetical Acrostics’, p. 443. For example, the daleth, kaph, and qoph letters span only one verse, while the other letters span two verses.

45.

Perhaps something went wrong in the course of the re-ordering of the original pe–ayin order to ayin–pe. Alternatively, perhaps at some point in the Second Temple period a scribe familiar with the ayin–pe order was copying from a text which had the older pe–ayin order, and jumped to the wrong line.

46.

There are no Dead Sea texts of the relevant verses in Ps. 37. Neither are the relevant verses extant in the pesher on Ps. 37, at 4Q171.

Admittedly, Ps. 37 is unlike Pss. 25 and 34 in that it includes a verse that begins with waw and does not add an end verse beginning with pe. Also, each letter of the acrostic (for the most part) spans two verses. However, these structural forms are not inconsistent with the psalm following the pe–ayin order. As discussed in the text, the acrostic of Pss. 9–10, in which each letter seems (for the most part) to span two verses, and which includes a waw in its acrostic and does not end with pe, may have followed the pe–ayin order.

A striking parallel between Pss. 34 and 37 is that the samekh verse in both begins with sur me-ra va-aseh tov. Also, Ps. 34 ends with ‭וב םיסחה לב‬, while Ps. 37 ends with ‭וב וסח יב‬. Also, the superscription le-David (without more) is found at Pss. 25 through 28, and at Pss. 34, 35 and 37, perhaps indicating some relationship between these psalms. (In the other books, it is found at Pss. 103; 138; and 144.)

47.

It is unfortunate that we have no Dead Sea text of Prov. 31.

48.

Over time, scholarly awareness of the prevalence of the order is increasing, but I have not seen any scholar take the position that pe–ayin was the exclusive order of the period of the Judges and the First Temple. After the Izbet Sartah and Kuntillet ʿAjrud abecedaries were found, scholars typically viewed the pe–ayin order as a variant order. Later, after the Tel Zayit abecedary was found in 2005, the scholarly article publishing the find called the pe–ayin order ‘a well-attested alternative to the traditional order’. See Tappy et al., ‘An Abecedary’, p. 26. In 2007, in suggesting that the scribes of the eighth through sixth centuries bce were trained in this order, Ryan Byrne called pe–ayin the ‘prevalent (if not dominant)’ order of the time. See Byrne, ‘The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine’, BASOR 345 (2007), pp. 1–31 (5). Later, Seth L. Sanders, based on Byrne's observation, wrote that pe–ayin ‘may well have been the most popular’ order of the time. See his ‘Writing and Early Iron Age Israel: Before National Scripts, Beyond Nations and States’, in R.E. Tappy and P.K. McCarter Jr (eds.), Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), p. 102.

Similarly, although many who write about the pe–ayin order point to the suggested pe–ayin order in Pss. 9–10 and 34 (see, e.g., Demsky, ‘A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary’, p. 18, and Tappy et al., ‘An Abecedary’, p. 26), no one that I have seen has taken the next step and argued, as I am doing, that Pss. 25 and 37 originally followed the pe–ayin order as well.

49.

Almost certainly, none of the chapters of Lamentations postdate Cyrus' proclamation of 538 bce. None of the hope which it engendered is reflected in the book.

50.

Some scholars have argued that Prov. 30–31 are of post-exilic origin. They are the latest chapters in the book and are not even attributed to Solomon. Compare the first verse of the book, which tells us that what follows are the proverbs of Solomon, and 25.1 (introducing chs. 25–29): ‘These also are proverbs of Solomon, which were copied by the men of Hezekiah king of Judah’. (Chapter 30 is attributed to Agur son of Yakeh, and ch. 31 is attributed to King Lemuel.) If 31.10–31 follows the pe–ayin order, this suggests that at least this acrostic dates to the First Temple period. But it is possible that the pe–ayin order remained in some use in the post-exilic period.

51.

See C. Rollston, ‘Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests’, Maarav 10 (2003), pp. 135–93 (160–62). Byrne (‘Refuge of Scribalism’, p. 4) summarizes the pattern observed by Rollston as follows: ‘The samek always ascends to a height above the register's ceiling line, while the pe nestles snuggly below the left edge of the samek's lowest crossbar’.

52.

See Byrne, ‘Refuge of Scribalism’, pp. 4–6. See also Sanders, ‘Writing’, p. 102. Subsequent to Rollston's analysis, the unprovenanced ostracon published by Heide came to light. The way the samekh and its adjacent pe are inscribed in this ostracon do not fit the pattern observed by Rollston. This might suggest that the ostracon is a forgery. More likely, however, the ostracon is not a forgery and it is just an exception to the pattern observed by Rollston. The fact that not every inscription fits the pattern does not refute Byrne's suggestion.

53.

Admittedly, we see things before we eat them, suggesting perhaps that ayin should precede pe. But on this basis, perhaps resh (head) should precede both, and all of resh, ayin and pe should precede yod (hand) and kaph (palm). Obviously, there is no natural order being followed in the order of the letters.

54.

As is well-known, the names of the Jewish months were adopted from Babylonia around this time as well.

There seems to be an acrostic in the last chapter of Ben Sira. See the Hebrew text of this work known as manuscript B, discovered in the Genizah. Some view this acrostic as following the pe–ayin order. When looked at more closely, however, it seems to follow the ayin–pe order. See the text in A. Kahana, Ha-Sefarim ha-Ḥitzonim (Jerusalem: Makor, 1978), II, p. 530. The third word of 51.23, ‭םילבס‬, reflects the samekh letter, followed by the ayin and pe of vv. 24 and 25. In any event, although manuscript B probably ultimately derives from the original Hebrew text of Ben Sira, it does not necessarily reflect the original Hebrew text, which seems to have evolved over the centuries.