Thijs Booij, «Psalm 127,2b: a Return to Martin Luther», Vol. 81 (2000) 262-268

In Ps 127,2b )n# (s\e4na4)) tells about the manner of giving (H. Irsigler); it does so by denoting the state of the dydy when he is receiving God’s gift. The particle Nk, as related to Ntn, means ‘according to that’, referring to the notion of toil. The tenor of v. 2b is to underscore that it is God who ‘builds the house’, ‘keeps the city’. What humans receive is not the outcome of toil, not a divine reward for it, but an expression of favour, a gift just like that. Translation: ‘To his beloved one He gives it in sleep’.

toiling or its being in vain (v. 2a), the statement ‘so He gives sleep to his beloved’ does not fit in with the preceding part of the verse⁹. Therefore some of those considering )n# an object argue that v. 2 has the ‘alternative’ Nk (HALAT: Nk I. ‘right, correct’), which they render by ‘rightly’¹⁰, or ‘verily’¹¹. This solution, however, is unsatisfactory. In the adverbial sense of ‘rightly’ Nk I is not used anywhere else, while expressing confirmation it does not mean ‘verily’, but ‘indeed’ (Josh 2,4: ‘indeed, these men came to me’)¹². A remaining option is to read yk, which is found in two manuscripts and may be supposed in the Septuagint rendering¹³. V. 2b could be translated then by ‘for He gives sleep to his beloved’¹⁴. From a grammatical point of view this is perfectly sound; yet it is no proper solution. The fact is that reading )n# as an object, apart from the difficulty of Nk, presents a contextual problem. The statement ‘He gives sleep to his beloved’ makes sense if the preceding part of text is essentially a rejection of over-exertion, toiling which hardly leaves room for a night’s sleep¹⁵. This, however, is not the case. The tenor of vv. 1.2a is not that people do wrong by over-exerting themselves, but that their effort is in vain if God is not behind it. In v. 1 the notion ‘toiling’ is not essential, in the second distich it is even missing. It comes to the fore in v. 2, when the message is brought home by use of the second person and a picture of gruelling labour.

        It may be asked whether indeed )n# is the same as hnF#$'. A remarkable suggestion has been offered by B.D. Eerdmans, who thinks the text has not )nF#$e, but )n"#&¹⁶. Eerdmans renders v. 2b by ‘this a hateful man will give to his dear friend’, relating ‘this’ to the ‘bread of toil’. Eerdman’s interpretation is creative, but slightly absurd. How are we to imagine a hateful man giving the bread of toil to his dear friend? Moreover, )n"#&, as a noun, does not denote a ‘hateful man’, but an enemy. So we may return to )nF#$e. M. Dahood, referring to Syriac s\ayna4) and Ethiopic sene), argues it means ‘prosperity’¹⁷.