The prayer Aleinu is said at the end of every prayer service: three times daily and, similarly, Ashrai is said in the daily morning service twice and at the start of Mincha afternoon prayers.
Both also share a common issue: a missing
verse.
Aleinu
Many, many years ago I was surprised to learn
from a principal that siddurs published in the Middle East included a verse
that had been ‘dropped’ centuries ago from European and North American siddurs–
as it seemed to criticize Jesus and Christianity.
I, like many others, grew up on Hebrew school siddurs
(with special line numbers for sequential reading aloud) such as Sidur Shvil Khadash (1931) and
Sidur Tefilat Yisrael (1965), and in synagogue or home the Tikun Meir
siddur (1935)[i]
or the widely popular Daily Prayer Book Ha-Siddur Ha-Shalem by
Philip Birnbaum (1949).
Only years
later did I stumble upon the ‘missing’ verse when I purchased a pocket size Complete Art Scroll Siddur (1985).
The ‘skipped’ verse was restored, in brackets,
and so too in the RCA Sidur Avodat HaLev
(2018).
Each explains
that it was removed under pressure from the Christian Church and Christian
authorities[ii]. The Art Scroll elaborates in its p. 187
commentary that in 1400 CE a Jew who converted to Christian convinced Church
authorities the verse criticized belief in Jesus based on gematria numerology.
The word וריק (= emptiness) has a numerical
value of 316, which is also the value of the letters יּשוֹ ,
the Hebrew name of Jesus.
Why any Christian leadership would have fallen
for the convert’s argument is surprising.
His nitpicking focus on the word וריק (emptiness) and numerology was
too obtuse when he could have more easily pointed out the verse’s second half
can be seen as a pun.
The full verses is: [iii]
|
ל־אֵל לֹֽא יוֹשִׁיעַוִים לָהֶֽבֶל וָרִיק,
וּמִתְפַּלְּלִים אֶמִשְׁתַּֽחֲ שֶׁהֵם |
for they bow to vanity and emptiness and
pray to a god that saves not. |
The last word: Yosheah, actually means salvation. And the verse --
which is critical of the false god of others – can readily be seen as a pun
targeting Jesus and Christianity. I.e., Yosheah echoes Yeshu, the Hebrew name of Jesus.
Both the Art
Scroll siddur and the RCA note this second half is copied from Isaiah 45:20.
It is part of a
prophecy about Cyrus the Mede who would conquer Babylon and establish the
Persian Empire ‘as God’s agent’.
And Rabbi Jonathan
Sacks in his commentary to the Koren Rosh
Hashana Mahzor (2011), p. 595, notes the first half phrase קירִוָ הֶבֶל
is from Isaiah 30:7: in a verse specifically
about Egypt as an unreliable ally.
Isaiah and his
prophecies predate Jesus and Christianity by some 700 years[iv].
And while Church officials probably could not
read and understand Hebrew, they certainly knew their Old Testament via Jerome’s
Latin Vulgate -- and especially Isaiah.
It is the one book most revered by the Church
as foretelling Jesus’ arrival, mission andtransparent death/resurrection.
As noted by Wikipedia, the Gospel of John,
states that Isaiah "saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him”.
Gregory of
Nyssa (c. 335–395) believed that the Prophet Isaiah "knew
more perfectly than all others the
mystery of the religion of the Gospel". Jerome (c.
342–420) also lauds the Prophet Isaiah, saying, "He was more of an Evangelist than a
Prophet, because he described all of the Mysteries of the Church of Christ so
vividly.iv
Consequently, any Church pressure against the Aleinu verse – as both parts are copied
from Isaiah -- was poor theology,
and simply anti-Semitism.
The outcome, however, was clear.
In countries where Christianity was the
dominant religion -- and often the state's official religion -- maintaining
such a verse was asking for trouble: from the Church, peasant masses and even
the government.
In the East: in ancient Babylonia and then
Persia and Parthia, and later anywhere under Islam, no such fear or danger
existed, so there the verse continued to be printed and read.
Today, in the Democratic West, such fears no
longer hold sway – so the verse can be restored.
The Isaiah
texts are below: https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1030.htm
and https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1045.htm
30:7
|
ז וּמִצְרַיִם, הֶבֶל וָרִיק יַעְזֹרוּ;
לָכֵן קָרָאתִי לָזֹאת, רַהַב הֵם שָׁבֶת. |
7 For Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose; therefore have I called
her arrogancy that sitteth still. |
45:20
|
כ הִקָּבְצוּ וָבֹאוּ הִתְנַגְּשׁוּ יַחְדָּו, פְּלִיטֵי
הַגּוֹיִם; לֹא יָדְעוּ, הַנֹּשְׂאִים אֶת-עֵץ פִּסְלָם, וּמִתְפַּלְלִים, אֶל-אֵל לֹא יוֹשִׁיעַ. |
20 Assemble yourselves and come, draw
near together, ye that are escaped of the nations; they have no knowledge
that carry the wood of their graven image, and pray
unto a god that cannot save. |
Ashrai
This prayer gets its name from the two
preliminary verses: Psalm 84:5 and Psalm 144:15 which both begin with the word ashrai = praise. Thereafter the body
of the prayer is David's Psalm 145. It
closes with a last verse addition from Psalm 115:18.
Psalm 145 is an acrostic with each verse
starting with a different letter of the alptransparent; habet in sequential order.
One letter and its verse is missing. The
letter Nun.
Years ago my Hebrew school teacher told our class
that originally there was a Nun verse but it was such a horrific curse that it
was later removed. It was connected to the ensuing verse’s word םילִנֹּפְהַ haNoflim = the fallen.
Our teacher was (inaccurately) citing the
Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 4b: 21-22.
There, the 3rd century CE Rabbi Johanan Ha-Nappahit asks why there is missing verses. And the
Talmud’s answer, citing 4th century CE Rav Nahman b. Yitzhak[v], is that King David – by
prophetic vision – knew that the prophet Amos – some 250 years later – would
compose a verse beginning with Nun (Amos
5:2) that was a curse on the Children of Israel for betraying God.
David therefore skipped the Nun verse.
According to this Talmud passage, then, there
never was a Nun verse in Psalm 145.
One might question the logic of Rav
Nahman b. Yitzhak’s answer. It assumes King David had prophetic powers not seen
elsewhere in his 1 and 2 Samuel and 1
Kings history, nor in his psalms.
And it assumes that of all the verses in the
prophets, David focused on Amos 5:2
and so decided to skip the Nun verse.
In truth, a search using Strong’s Concordance
5307[vi],
shows Amos 5:2 is the only verse in
the prophets that begins with the word נָפְלָה or a variant.
But Amos has similar Nun verses forewarning
Divine punishment for the Children of Israel -- all stating with נִשְׁבַּע “God has sworn …”
Amos verse 4:2
|
ב נִשְׁבַּע אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה בְּקָדְשׁוֹ, כִּי הִנֵּה
יָמִים בָּאִים עֲלֵיכֶם; וְנִשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם בְּצִנּוֹת, וְאַחֲרִיתְכֶן
בְּסִירוֹת דּוּגָה. |
2 The Lord GOD hath sworn by His
holiness: Lo, surely the days shall come upon you, that ye shall be taken
away with hooks, and your residue with fish-hooks. |
Amos 8:2
|
ח נִשְׁבַּע אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, נְאֻם-יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת, מְתָאֵב אָנֹכִי אֶת-גְּאוֹן יַעֲקֹב, וְאַרְמְנֹתָיו
שָׂנֵאתִי; וְהִסְגַּרְתִּי, עִיר וּמְלֹאָהּ. |
8 The Lord GOD hath sworn by Himself,
saith the LORD, the God of hosts: I abhor the pride of Jacob, and hate his
palaces; and I will deliver up the city with all that is therein. |
Amos 8:7
|
ז נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה, בִּגְאוֹן יַעֲקֹב; אִם-אֶשְׁכַּח
לָנֶצַח, כָּל-מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם. |
7 The LORD hath sworn by the
pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their works |
In brief, the idea that David omitted a Nun
verse line as stated in the Talmud is very ‘mystical’ and dubious.
It is also inconsistent with the style of
David’s other psalms where he mentions enemies or the wicked who deserve Divine
punishment.
David always
allots an entire passage and even an entire psalm to vent and
stress how evil his enemies are or the wicked who oppress the poor and distort
justice.
In fact, all
psalms that mention enemies of God or the wicked use entire passages.
See on enemies:
Psalm 3 ( Absalom). Psalm 5, Psalm
7 (Cush the Benjaminite), Psalms 9, 13. 17. 18, 21, 22. 27. 31, 35, 41, 52 (Doag),
54, 55, 79, 81, 120, and 132.
Psalms against the wicked are Psalms 10 , 11, 12, 16, 28, 37, 53, 82, 94, 101 .
So a single verse
‘criticism’ is simply not David’s style.
And it is not a
psalms style at all.
Even the terse
Psalm 137, “By the waters of Babylon” ends with a curse of the Babylonians that
is a chilling two verses:
Consequently, the RCA’s other solution makes
sense. Citing other psalm examples, it
argues that skipping an acrostic verse line was standard practice to mark a
major theme shift. Namely, Psalms 9-10,
25, 34 and 37[vii].
Nun verse in ancient texts
The RCA siddur (2018 ), pages 69-70,
acknowledges that some ancient copies of Psalm 145 have been found -- some
dating to the Dead Sea Scroll era (c. 200 BCE to 100 CE[viii])
-- which do have an Nun verse:
The verse is:
|
נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכל מעשיו |
God’s words are trustworthy, All His actions are righteous. |
The RCA argues that this ancient verse was a
later insertion into the original King David text which has been “transmitted
faithfully from generation to generation”.
It suggests that at some later date, this verse was added to ‘fill in the gap’,
and thereafter this adjusted text was copied for many years.
Wikipedia on Psalm 145 notes that the above
Nun verse has been found in the Greek Septuagint,
the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta (an
early Christian bible) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPs-ɑ).
And a number
of modern Christian bibles have accepted the verse as authentic and original –
and included it in their texts.
But Wikipedia also
points out that all the above, from the Dead
Sea Scroll text onward, have other significant variations from the
traditional Hebrew text and are therefore “imperfect evidence” as to the
original. The Dead Sea Scroll version, for example, adds at the end of each
verse "Blessed be YHVH and blessed is His name forever and ever."
It also notes
that ancient translations that came directly from the Hebrew do not have
a Nun verse;
the Aramaic
Targum, the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
Finally,
Wikipedia notes that this Nun verse is oddly almost identical to the Tzadik verse,
differing only in the first word: נאמן instead of צַדִּיק .
As to Wikipedia’s listing the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate as containing the Nun verse, yes, it appears in both but its presence is problematic.
The psalm – listed as 144 in the Greek counting – has
the Nun verse as an ‘attachment’ to the Mem מּ verse and coded as 13(a) – making
verse 13 an unusual and aberrant ‘double
verse’.
Moreover, the Greek
translation masks the fact the Hebrew Nun vtransparenterse uses אלוהים
.
In the Septuagint,
the Hebrew אלוהים is always translated
by Θεὸς (God)
from Genesis 1:1 onward, and its translation for the four letter Tetragrammaton
is always Κύριος (Lord/Master)[ix].
But its 13a verse uses the
equivalent of the Tetragrammaton, Κύριος , instead of
the Hebrew version’s אלוהים, Θεὸς .
This is a significant ‘modification’
that Wikipedia misses.
|
13. Thy kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom, and thy dominion [endures] through all generations. The Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his
works. https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=144 |
13.
ἡ βασιλεία σου βασιλεία πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, καὶ ἡ δεσποτεία σου ἐν πάσῃ γενεᾷ
καὶ γενεᾷ. 13α. πιστὸς Κύριος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς
ἔργοις αὐτοῦ. |
Consequently, the Septuagin’s
Greek translator:
1. 1. did have a Hebrew version with the Nun verse included,
2. 2. but he seems to have recognized the Nun verse was stylistically odd and an ‘intrusion’ but felt obliged to include it as part of the Mem מּ verse 13.
3. 3. He also altered that Nun verse so it matched the rest of David’s poem: by replacing אלוהים with David’s standard: the Tetragrammaton.
As for the Latin
Vulgate, Jerome first started his translations from the Septuagint but eventually was able to
get access to Hebrew Tanach scrolls and was taught Hebrew by one bar
Anina[x]
who also lived in Bethlehem.
In particular, Jerome revised some of his Psalms translations
from the Septuagint in light of differences with the Hebrew scrolls. But the
earlier Septuagint versions were already in circulation.
Below, is the Vulgate
for Psalm 144 (Hebrew 145) with both translation versions.
|
13mem
- regnum tuum regnum omnium saeculorum
et potestas tua in omni generatione et generatione The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his
works. |
https://vulgate.org/ot/psalms_144.htm
As can readily be seen, these two versions are distinctly
different.
One is short and follows Jewish Masoretic tradition.
The other, longer one has the extra Nun verse added.
The latter, copying the Septuagint, uses in the Nun section the Latin for Lord/Master = Dominus.
It, like the Septuagint, numbers each verse, using the Hebrew alphabet to forewarn the reader that the psalm is an acrostic poem. And it too, in the version with the Nun verse, ‘attaches’ it to the Mem מּ verse.
A clear indication that Jerome, as well, recognized the Nun verse was an addition.
Early draft?
The RCA view that some scribe years after David’s
time inserted a Nun verse to ‘fill the gap’ is very possible. Interpolations are well known to manuscript
transmission experts[xi].
But there is another possibility. Namely, that the Nun verse texts reflect an early
draft of Psalm 145.
Such an ‘early
draft’ explanation is different from the conclusion that the Nun verse was in
the original version found in David’s published Book of Psalm.
And as far as I can tell, no one has raised this option before.
That a psalm went through ‘edits’ and ‘revisions’ is not
impossible and quite likely as with all poetic literary works.
We have the evidence of David’s Psalm 18 which also appears as 2
Samuel 22.
Psalm 18’s opening is different – often longer – than
the simple text of 2 Samuel 22.
Here are the first 5 verses.
Words that are identical are in BLACK. Those that differ are in RED.
2 Samuel 22 Psalm
18
|
לַיהוָה וַיְדַבֵּר דָּוִד , אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, בְּיוֹם הִצִּיל יְהוָה אֹתוֹ {ר} מִכַּף כָּל-אֹיְבָיו, וּמִכַּף שָׁאוּל.
ה כִּי אֲפָפֻנִי, מִשְׁבְּרֵי-מָוֶת; נַחֲלֵי בְלִיַּעַל, יְבַעֲתֻנִי |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
As can be seen from just
these opening verses, the final Psalm 18 version has both minor and major
differences from the text of 2 Samuel 22. Minor differences relate to
conjunctions as separate words or as prefixes. But the major changes include
different synonyms, and entire clauses added or omitted. As stated at the outset, such
‘adjustments’ are normal in poetry and literature as the author fine tunes
his words and ideas from draft to draft to ‘final product’. So having an actual Nun verse
in ancient ‘draft’ copies is not surprising to me. The Nun verse’s wording is consistent
with the context of the verses before and after: as the entire Psalm 145 is a
running, positive praise of God. Two
Flaws But the Nun verse does have two
major flaws. 1. 2.
Flaw
#1 3. Wikipedia
notes the verse is almost identical to the Tzadek verse, but incorrectly
states the only change was in the first word. The change actually affects the first two words: נאמן אלוהים vs צַדִּיק יְהוָה While God is regularly referred
to in the Chumash and Nach by both the four letter Tetragrammaton and the
term אלוהים, David throughout Psalm 145 only
addresses God using the Tetragrammaton – the proper name of God as The Eternal.
In all, nine (9) times. The Tetragrammaton is David’s standard and almost
exclusive term for God Eternal. He only used אלוהים in 3 psalms: 57, 60 and their merged version Psalm 108[xii]. These psalms mark low points when The Eternal seemed distant and
disinterested: ·
Psalm 57 - while David was
hiding alone in a cave awaiting Saul and his troops. ·
Psalm 60 – recounting how God
let Edom to rise up and ravage the land and Jewish people. Flaw #2 The
second half of the verse is identical to Psalm 145’s verse for Tzadik:
Psalms never repeat a verse or a half verse
or even a key word, unless back to back for emphasis. See Psalms 90, 118, 121, 124, 136, 148, 150 and
each of the 26 verses of Psalm 136 , Hodu LaDonay Kee Tov Kee LaOlam Chasdoh. Even Psalm 145 itself starts with such a back to back key word repetition in verses 1 and 2:
But to have
two verses -- some three verses apart
-- with the same “ending”, would be a major stylistic error and a
sloppy breach of polished psalm ‘rules’. |
||||||||||||
Consequently,
this particular Nun verse would never have been deemed acceptable for a
‘finished product’.
It may have been part of an early draft
as suggested by Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22, but on closer reflection, I doubt it
would have even been in an early draft.
David would never have lost focus and suddenly
abandon his personally preferred Tetragrammaton for the term אלוהים .
A term he correctly saw as more distant and,
in fact, generic.
It is used throughout the Tanach not just to mean the God of Israel, but also for other,
false, pagan gods.
See Strong’s
Concordance 430[xiii]
. Key examples are Exodus 18:11, Exodus 32: 1 (Golden Calf),
Judges 2:12, 1 Samuel 5:7(Dagon), 1
Samuel 4:8, Psalm 86:8 and Hosea 3:1
Over 60 such references to pagan gods appear
in the Tanach.
So, I believe, there is no way David – even in
an early draft – would have written the Nun verse with its generic ‘god’
reference.
It is a later interpolation, and one done by
an amateur
scribe who was not versed in the rules of psalm writing, and who did
not pay attention to David’s exclusive use of the Tetragrammaton in Psalm 145
as elsewhere.
Even the translator of the Septuagint recognized the anomaly of the
term ‘god’ instead of the Tetragrammaton – and altered the Nun verse text accordingly.
And Jerome in the Vulgate following suit.
In brief, this amateur Nun verse interpolation should be left
out.
Nun Verse Transmission
As made clear by the previous blog on the Nash
Papyrus and Septuagint, even the holiest and most revered of Sacred texts, the
Torah or Chumash -- the words of God as dictated to Moses -- underwent
alternations not only due to scribal sloppiness such as misspellings, but
conscious alterations as with the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint and the
Hebrew Nash papyrus texts of the Decalogue, Exodus 20: 2-13.
That latter ‘modified’ Hebrew Torah scroll not
only was the source for the Septuagint translation carried out in Alexandria,
Egypt in the mid-3rd century BCE, but was still in circulation in
Egypt as a ‘model’ for the Nash Papyrus Hebrew prayer scroll some 100 years later.
The reality of divergent text transmission of Holy
Scripture was an Ancient problem, a Medieval problem and one that exists to
this day.
Yemenite Torahs -- deemed kosher by the late
Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef -- have numerous differences from
the Masoretic text tradition.
So to have Psalm 145 transmitted over the
generations and centuries in two versions is not surprising.
Based on Wikipedia’s list of these divergent transmissions,
it seems to me that Egypt and nearby Israel were the ‘circle’ in which the Nun
verse variant circulated.
But in the East: in ancient Babylonia,
subsequent Persia and Parthia and ultimately the world of Islam, the Psalm 145 original
version – without a Nun verse -- was preserved and transmitted.
In the late 9th century CE, a
siddur was created by Amram Gaon of Sura for the Jews of Spain[xiv] and it spread the original, Nun-less version to Europe.
His Sidur
Rab Amram became the foundation for
all European prayer books[xv].
And it transmitted the Nun-less Psalm 145 as Ashrai.
Thus, the Nun-less original version of Psalm
145 as Ashrai became the ‘norm’ not
only in the East but in all of the Western world – and, eventually, in the New
World.
Final Note:
It is important to recognize that the above
analysis of the Nun verse interpolation is also a cautionary warning.
Just because something was preserved in very
ancient texts (even Dead Sea Scrolls) does not mean those ancient texts
accurately reflect even older ‘original’ sources.
Oral and other ’traditions’ passed on through
the generations may well, in fact, be more accurate.
[i] See https://www.amazon.com/Sidur-Tikun-Meir-Ke-Sidran-Khol/dp/B01MQVV68K
[ii] Art Scroll, p. RCA, page 594 commentary. The RCA also explains why its
translation has been ‘adjusted’ by replacing the Hebrew “they’ with
“idolaters”-- so as not to confuse/antagonize Christians.
[iii] https://www.sefaria.org/Siddur_Edot_HaMizrach%2C_Weekday_Shacharit%2C_Alenu.2?ven=Sefaria_Community_Translation&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
[iv]
Rabbi Sacks notes this 700 year gap. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah.
[v] See
https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.4b.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en.
The dates of these 2 rabbis pop up when their names are clicked on.
[vi] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_5307.htm
[vii] RCA siddur, p. 70 commentary citing
Rabbi Ronald Benum.
[x] https://vulgate.org/jerome/index.htm
[xi]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation_(manuscripts)
and for Josephus interpolations see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus Origen at the early 3rd century
began a massive work called the Hexapla: to compare – verse by verse, the
Hebrew Torah scroll text, the Septuagint and 5 other Greek translations, to
determine which Greek translation – verse by verse - was most accurate and
uncorrupted. Some Septuagint copies also had well known scribal errors and later
interpolations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla
[xii] Soncino, The Psalms (1945)
commentary p. 364.
[xiii]
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
[xv] Ibid.
