Understanding Conflation and Its Textual Implications

Conflation readings in the Psalms represent one of the more subtle but significant phenomena encountered in the field of Old Testament textual criticism. The term “conflation” describes the process in which a scribe, faced with variant readings from two or more textual sources, merges those variants into a single, combined reading. This process typically occurs when a scribe attempts to preserve what appears to be valuable textual information from multiple traditions rather than choosing one over another. The result is a text that may appear longer or more complex than its antecedents, yet it may also reveal the scribe’s reverence for the sacred text and his desire to safeguard every perceived word of Scripture.

In the Psalms, where poetic parallelism, repetition, and rhythm are integral features, conflation can easily occur without immediate detection. Many conflations arise naturally from the structure of Hebrew poetry itself, while others emerge through the later transmission history. When analyzing such readings, textual critics must carefully balance respect for the Masoretic tradition with the evidence provided by the ancient witnesses such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (LXX), the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate. The principle that the Masoretic Text (MT) serves as the base text remains firm; yet, where evidence from multiple early witnesses points to conflation, it becomes possible to trace the process through which the original text was restored by faithful scribes.

Historical Context of Conflation in Hebrew Poetic Transmission

The Book of Psalms was composed over several centuries, from the time of Moses (Psalm 90, ca. 1513 B.C.E.) to post-exilic compositions around the fifth century B.C.E. Its transmission involved multiple collections—Davidic, Korahite, Asaphite, and others—each with its own scribal lineage. During the early transmission phase, before the stabilization of the Hebrew consonantal text under the Sopherim (ca. 400–200 B.C.E.), variant readings could easily arise through parallel psalms, scribal harmonization, or liturgical adaptation. Because many psalms were used in temple worship, scribes might preserve variant readings used in different communities rather than discard them. Such conditions made the Psalter a fertile ground for conflation.

By the time of the Masoretes (6th–10th centuries C.E.), the text had reached a high level of stabilization. However, the Masoretes inherited textual traditions that had already passed through centuries of meticulous but human transmission. When comparing the MT with the Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls (especially 11QPsᵃ and 4QPsᵇ), we can occasionally detect evidence of conflation or attempts to resolve earlier divergences between traditions.

Case Study 1: Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 – A Double Witness to Conflation

Psalm 18 is nearly identical to 2 Samuel 22, suggesting that one text was copied from the other or that both derive from a common source. Yet small divergences between the two reflect textual development. For instance, Psalm 18:36 reads, “You have given me the shield of Your salvation, and Your right hand upholds me, and Your gentleness makes me great,” while the parallel in 2 Samuel 22:36 lacks the clause “and Your right hand upholds me.” The additional phrase in the Psalm may represent a conflation of two traditions—one emphasizing divine protection (“shield of salvation”) and another highlighting divine support (“Your right hand upholds me”). A scribe preserving both may have intended to retain each theological nuance rather than suppress one.

In this case, the shorter reading in Samuel likely represents the earlier version. Yet the Psalm’s expanded form, preserved in the MT, does not necessarily reflect corruption but rather liturgical elaboration or deliberate conflation by a Davidic scribe preparing the psalm for temple worship. The Septuagint confirms the longer reading, indicating that the conflation predated the Greek translation (ca. 250 B.C.E.), showing how early such harmonization could occur.

Case Study 2: Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 – The Elohistic Conflation

Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 are nearly identical except for the divine name substitution—Jehovah in Psalm 14 and Elohim in Psalm 53. Yet subtle textual differences reveal a process of conflation and adaptation. Psalm 14 belongs to Book I of the Psalter (Psalms 1–41), characterized by the frequent use of the Tetragrammaton. Psalm 53, in Book II (Psalms 42–72), reflects the Elohistic editing phase, where “Elohim” replaces “Jehovah” in many psalms. However, beyond this divine name substitution, Psalm 53 includes variant readings such as “there is none who does good” instead of “there is none who does good, not even one.” The repetition in Psalm 14 reflects a conflation, merging two parallel expressions for emphasis.

Textual analysis shows that the scribe who produced the Elohistic Psalter (likely in the late monarchic or early exilic period) had before him a text tradition similar to Psalm 14. To maintain theological consistency within the Elohistic collection, he modified the divine name but also streamlined certain repetitions, likely perceiving them as expansions. Yet from the standpoint of textual criticism, Psalm 14’s fuller form probably preserves the original dual expression, as the repetition is typical of Hebrew poetry’s parallel structure. Thus, Psalm 14 represents a conflated preservation of the full expression, while Psalm 53 reflects an editorial simplification.

Case Study 3: Psalm 40:6–8 and Its Conflation with Psalm 70

Psalm 40 and Psalm 70 share several verses almost verbatim, particularly Psalm 40:13–17 and Psalm 70:1–5. Many scholars have noted that Psalm 70 appears to be a shortened, independent adaptation of the latter section of Psalm 40. However, within Psalm 40 itself, verses 6–8 show internal evidence of conflation between two textual traditions—one emphasizing obedience and the other ritual. Psalm 40:6 reads, “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened,” while the Septuagint renders, “a body You have prepared for me.” The latter reading, cited in Hebrews 10:5, reflects a translator’s interpretive rendering rather than a direct Hebrew variant. Yet some Hebrew manuscripts at Qumran show slight variation in this clause, suggesting an early conflation of two idiomatic expressions for divine commissioning.

The Masoretic reading “my ears You have opened” (literally “dug”) may reflect the more original idiom, alluding to servanthood and obedience. A conflated text might have sought to blend this idiom with a broader anthropological expression, later influencing the Greek translator’s interpretive choice. Thus, while the MT preserves the more original Hebrew reading, the LXX version indirectly testifies to a textual tradition shaped by interpretive conflation at the translation stage rather than in the Hebrew Vorlage itself.

Case Study 4: Psalm 108 – A Composite Conflation of Two Earlier Psalms

Psalm 108 offers one of the clearest examples of deliberate conflation in the Psalter. It combines Psalm 57:7–11 and Psalm 60:5–12 almost verbatim, uniting them into a new composition of praise and confidence. This conflation is not the result of scribal confusion but of intentional editorial synthesis, forming a new psalm for worship. Psalm 108:1–5 corresponds to Psalm 57:7–11, while Psalm 108:6–13 parallels Psalm 60:5–12. The joining of these two sections demonstrates how inspired materials could be recontextualized under divine supervision for renewed liturgical use.

While this instance represents intentional editorial conflation rather than accidental merging, it nonetheless reveals an underlying scribal principle: earlier inspired texts could serve as building blocks for later canonical psalms. The careful transmission of this composite psalm within the MT underscores that not all conflation signifies corruption. Rather, it shows the adaptive and preservational nature of Hebrew scribal tradition, where existing inspired compositions were preserved and integrated to meet new worship settings without loss of textual integrity.

Case Study 5: Psalm 145:13 – The Acrostic Conflation Restored by Ancient Witnesses

Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic, each verse beginning with successive Hebrew letters. In the MT, however, the verse corresponding to the letter “nun” is missing. Yet the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and one Dead Sea Scroll (11QPsᵃ) include a verse between verses 13 and 14: “Jehovah is faithful in all His words and gracious in all His works.” This missing verse may not represent a simple omission but the resolution of an earlier conflation.

The Dead Sea Scroll reading includes both clauses (“faithful in all His words and gracious in all His works”), while some ancient versions include only one. The Masoretic omission might reflect a scribe’s decision to exclude one of two competing versions of the same verse. The conflated form, preserved in the Qumran Psalms Scroll and reflected in the LXX, likely represents the original acrostic structure, which included both phrases. This demonstrates how conflation sometimes preserves the fuller, more authentic text rather than a later expansion.

Linguistic Indicators of Conflation in the Psalms

Conflated readings in the Psalms often show specific linguistic traits that help identify them. First, they frequently exhibit synonymous parallelism where two clauses express similar ideas using different vocabulary. This can lead later scribes to merge variant lines, producing a combined verse containing both synonyms. Second, conflation often introduces irregular meter or rhythm, a clue that two distinct poetic lines have been joined. Third, the presence of double expressions—such as “Jehovah, Jehovah my God” or “salvation and deliverance”—can suggest harmonization of two textual traditions.

However, not all doublets in the Psalms indicate conflation. Hebrew poetry regularly employs repetition for emphasis. Thus, textual critics must discern whether a given repetition fits the stylistic norms of Hebrew poetry or whether it reflects an effort to combine competing variants. The guiding principle remains that the shorter, more coherent reading is usually preferable unless strong manuscript evidence favors the longer one.

Scribal Motivation and Theological Sensitivity

The scribes who transmitted the Psalms were not careless copyists but reverent custodians of sacred Scripture. Conflation in their work does not indicate doctrinal manipulation or embellishment but rather a deep concern to safeguard the divine message. When confronted with multiple textual traditions, a scribe might hesitate to reject one, fearing the loss of inspired words. This conservative impulse, rooted in profound reverence for the text, contributed to the remarkable preservation of the Psalter’s content even through minor conflations. The Masoretic scribes later codified this conservative approach by preserving every consonant and adding meticulous notes to ensure textual fidelity.

Theological sensitivity also played a role. Scribes sought to maintain the psalms’ theological balance—between divine justice and mercy, judgment and deliverance. In some cases, conflation allowed both emphases to coexist within a single verse. For example, Psalm 86:15 combines both “abundant in mercy and truth,” echoing Exodus 34:6. Even if this expression emerged from merging variant recensions, it reflects faithful preservation of divine attributes as already established in Torah tradition.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Conflation Evidence

The Psalms Scrolls from Qumran provide invaluable evidence regarding the phenomenon of conflation. Manuscripts such as 11QPsᵃ (the Great Psalms Scroll) reveal that the Psalter at Qumran existed in fluid form, with varying arrangements and occasional conflated readings. For instance, in 11QPsᵃ, Psalm 145 includes the missing nun verse, while other psalms appear in altered sequence or merged form. Such variants demonstrate that even before the Masoretic stabilization, scribes sought to preserve multiple readings rather than eliminate them.

Importantly, these Qumran conflations do not undermine the stability of the Hebrew text but rather illuminate the process by which the canonical Psalter reached its final form. They show how multiple textual traditions coexisted and were reconciled into the carefully transmitted Masoretic Text that now forms the standard Hebrew Bible.

The Role of the Masoretic Tradition in Preserving and Clarifying Conflated Readings

The Masoretes’ fidelity to the received text ensured that even where conflation existed, the textual evidence was preserved without further corruption. Their marginal notes, or Masorah, occasionally recorded known variants, ensuring that no scribal uncertainty would escape notice. For example, the Masoretes occasionally noted “kethib” (what is written) and “qere” (what is read) variations in the Psalms, showing awareness of differing traditions but leaving the consonantal text untouched. This practice protected the integrity of the transmitted text and allows modern textual critics to distinguish genuine conflations from later scribal additions.

The Masoretic Text, particularly as represented by the Aleppo Codex and Codex Leningrad B 19A, reflects the culmination of over a millennium of careful textual stewardship. Conflations that may have arisen in earlier centuries were fixed and transmitted with precision, allowing textual critics today to reconstruct the earliest recoverable Hebrew form with high confidence.

Conflation and the Reliability of the Psalter

Far from undermining confidence in the Psalms, the study of conflation reinforces the reliability of the Hebrew text. Conflation demonstrates the conservative nature of the scribal tradition, showing that scribes preserved every possible reading rather than arbitrarily omitting words. The cumulative manuscript evidence—from the Dead Sea Scrolls through the Masoretic Text—confirms that even where minor conflations exist, the essential message remains unchanged. The structure, theology, and poetic integrity of the Psalms stand firmly supported by the ancient textual witnesses.

This phenomenon also exemplifies the principle of preservation through transmission. God did not miraculously prevent scribal variation but ensured through faithful human effort that His Word remained recoverable. The identification and understanding of conflation readings thus serve as a testament to the providential preservation of Scripture through historical processes.

Textual Criticism as Restoration, Not Skepticism

The goal of textual criticism in studying conflations is not to sow doubt about the text but to restore the earliest attainable form of the inspired Hebrew original. Conflation readings, once recognized, provide insight into the history of textual transmission and allow for the reconstruction of the earliest poetic expression. The careful comparison of the Masoretic Text with the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Syriac, and Vulgate, when done with reverence for the Hebrew base, confirms that the original Psalter can be known with remarkable precision.

The Masoretic tradition stands vindicated by the evidence: its scribes neither created nor obscured the text through unwarranted conflation but preserved the accumulated textual heritage of centuries with meticulous care. Where conflations exist, they reveal not corruption but reverence—a determination to lose nothing that might belong to the inspired Word.

Final Observations

The study of conflation readings in the Psalms reveals the depth of scribal fidelity and the richness of textual history within the Hebrew Scriptures. From early harmonizations like those between Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 to deliberate composite psalms like Psalm 108, the evidence consistently testifies to an enduring reverence for the sacred text. Conflation, in this context, stands not as a sign of weakness but as a witness to preservation—showing how divine truth was safeguarded through the conscientious efforts of those entrusted with the Word of God.

The Psalms, transmitted across more than a millennium, demonstrate a remarkable textual stability unparalleled in ancient literature. Through the combined testimony of the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the ancient versions, the original Hebrew wording remains substantially intact. Even where conflation appears, the faithful scribe’s hand has preserved rather than distorted the inspired message, fulfilling the purpose of textual transmission that ensures the enduring reliability of the Psalter as the divinely guided Word.

You May Also Enjoy

Retroversion of Hebrew into Aramaic Targum: Textual Considerations

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS