The Three reading of Acts 13:33

It is quoted from Psalm 2:7

Acts 13:33 is unique!
I don't know of any other New Testament quotation of the OT that sites a reference chapter.
But since the numbering of the majority of the NT came much later in history that's understandable.
The book of Psalms, being an early form of hymn book, was different.

Since the 16th century most translations have used, “second psalm”, following the majority of the Greek texts.
But the most common reading used by the early church fathers is “first psalm”.
The earliest extant text, P 45 (early third century), reads, “in the Psalms”.


33 ως και εν τω πρωτω ψαλμω γεγραπται υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε
Tischendorf's Greek New Testament, (c1869-1894)

God hath fulfilled vnto vs their chyldre in that he reysed vp Iesus agayne eve as it is written in the fyrste psalme: Thou arte my sonne this same daye begat I the.
Tyndale New Testament [1525]

*******************************************
ὡς καὶ ἐν τω ψαλμω τω δευτερω γεγραπται, Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.
Byz Majority Text

ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν ὡς καὶ ἐν τω ψαλμω γεγραπται τω δευτερω, Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.
NA/UBS GNT

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33 AV 1873

*******************************************
33 ο]τι ταυτην ο θς εκπεπλ[ηρωκεν
Αναστησας] ι̅η̅’ ως και εν τοις ψαλμ [οις
σημερο]ν γεγεννηκα σε′
Acts 13:33 [P45]

…that Son, spoken of in the Psalms, where he sayeth…
(from Isaac Newton’s paraphrasic Exposition [1643-1727])
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures
by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 1852, p. 373

Rob

 

Erasmus worked with Greek manuscripts that used the “first Psalm” variant.
He concluded that Psalm 1 was probably a preface to the Psalter.
Erasmus’ Commentary on Psalm 2, by Allan K. Jenkins [LINK]

In some traditions, Psalms 1 and 2 were considered one unit (Talmud, Berachoth 9b).
Many rabbis and church fathers combined Ps 1 with Ps 2.

“In the Jewish tradition, Rabbi Johanan is credited with the following words in the Babylonian Talmud: “Every chapter that was particularly dear to David he commenced with ‘Happy’ and terminated with ‘Happy.’ He began with ‘Happy,’ as it is written, ‘Happy is the man,’ and he terminated with ‘Happy,’ as it is written, ‘Happy are all they that take refuge in him’.” (Ber. 9b).”
The reference here to the first verse of Ps 1 and the last verse of Ps 2 indicates that the two psalms together were considered to be a literary unit."
Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50. (59).

Psalm 1 is not numbered in some Hebrew manuscripts nor in some codices of the LXX. (the opening pages of Psalms in the Aleppo Codex [LINK] are in rather poor condition).

My guess is that the verse was changed among some who were most familiar with the tradition of uniting Psalms one and two.
I would presume that this variant was noticed very early in church history, so early as to effect the reading of even P45.

Rob

 

Ed, you get the full benefit of my initial illiterate study notes.
I usually edit things quite a bit after copying them and posting them here.
This embarrassing err slipped past me.

I wished it read:

Acts 13:33 is unique!
I don't know of any other New Testament quotation of the OT that sites a reference chapter.
But since the numbering of the Scriptures came much later in history, that's understandable.
The book of Psalms, being an early form of hymn book, was different.

Rob

 

This “literary unit” theory is distinctly different from Erasmus’ opinion that the first psalm was a preface to the book.

If the “literary unit” theory is correct how would you unite these two distinctly different psalms?

Would the political situation during Christ’s time contribute to combining their message?

Rob

 

The two psalms are distinctly separate compositions.
Psalm one displays a chiastic form that is not followed through in the second psalm.

I don't know of any ancient sources (other than the Talmud) that provide commentary about the two psalms.

I was looking at the number of OT quotes in the NT and see there are quite a few more from Isaiah, the Psalms and the minor prophets.
The number of Dead Sea Scrolls show a similar trend.
It would be curious to see if the two psalms were considered one “literary unit” at that time because of their prophetic message – righteous/wicked and kingship.

The time was ripe for the appearance of the Christ.

Rob

 

I found a good analysis of the topic in:
Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter By Nancy L. DeClaissé-Walford (pp 37-40)[LINK]

Rob