88b. Psalm 30:19
89b. Psalm 11:4-6
4. "are wanting": Others <read> "are speaking". Others <read> "are counseling". But, please[[C]], precisely why <should> the manuscript's reading <be disturbed>? Or does the holy Father not sufficiently clearly imply both the opinion of a perverse mind and deceitful words?--The same <sc. Gallandi>
5. "they weren blessynge"[[A]][[B]]: Mill has ascertained that this reading of the manuscript's <is correct>: evidently the Doric third <person> plural <form>. Clement of Alexandria <had> "they bless"[[D]]. But the editions <print> with the Septuagint, "they were blessing"[[E]]. I accede to Mill; and I confirm this reading from the Septuagint, Psalm 5:10 : "With their tongues they <weren deceyvynge>[[B]]". Which passage indeed, expressed likewise in the Dorica dialect, appears to me as most similar to this Clementine <passage>. Not noticing that, Wotton less correctly judged that here perhaps should be read "they blessed": for this inversion of tenses changes the meaning of the psalm repeated by Clement.--The same <sc. Gallandi>
6. "but with their heart": The word "their", which is absent from the editions, Wotton restored from the manuscript.--The same <sc. Gallandi>
7-8. "Let become speechless, etc.": All editions except the London <print> "but" instead of "speechless"[[G]], which nevertheless both the manuscript codex and Clement of Alexandria exhibit. But that passage, mutilated in <the writings of> each Clement, thus should be restored: "Let become speechless the deceptive lips [and may the Lord utterly destroy all the deceptive lips, and] grandiloquent tongue." For from here that gap flowed, since the librarian turned his eyes from the first "deceptive" to the "tongue" after the second "deceptive". And this already earlier Potter advised at Clement of Alexandria's "Miscellanies", book 4, chapter 6, page 578, and Wotton at [this passage.--Gallandi][[H]]
<--> "But let become": Clement of Alexandria read "speechless" <in place of "but">, and indeed rightly; since this passage is <fused together> from verse 19 of psalm 30 according to the reckoning of the Greeks <i.e., the Septuagint version>, to both verse 4 of psalm 11 and those <verses> which follow. In citing the testimony of the Scriptures, that <it> is customary for the Fathers, from various passages to produce one body, we have noted above. As for why "let become" is written in the imperative and not "may become"[[I]], let be heard Basil at that <passage> of psalm 44: " 'And fare well, and reign.' But let not surprise us the saying <in the imperative mood>, the "fare well", because of the habit of Scripture <which> thus always configures <expressions of prayer>; For 'let thy will be done', instead of 'may be done', and 'thy kingdom come', instead of 'may come'," and Cyril at that <passage> of psalm 54: "Indeed 'let death come upon them'," as also in our Catena he tells that not only <expressions of prayer>, but also <prophetic expressions> in the Scriptures are produced <in the imperative mood>. <Cyril says>: "A custom for Scripture is that <prophetic expressions> are brought forth in imperative style; and so thereupon the <phrase>, 'let death come', and the <phrase>, 'let them come down', instead of '<it> shall come', and '<they> shall come down', has been said."--Young
9. "Let us magnify": Davies reads "we will magnify", as <has> the <Septuagint> <in> Psalm 11:5. His conjecture is confirmed from Clement of Alexandria, who also himself thus reads <in the cited passage>.--Gallandi
B. For the translation of these Doric forms, I've used an alternate Middle English form of the past progressive tense.
D. The form here is the normal 3rd person plural present. It seems likely that this is not what Clement of Alexandria actually read and wrote, but rather a standardization of a later manuscript.
E. The current critical edition of the Septuagint retains the form in the main text.\
F. There are a number of variants for this final phrase.
G. There is a difference of one letter.
H. Migne's text reads "et Wott. ad. GALL. h. 1.". There are a few irregularities here. First, this note is followed by another note without the customary separating dash. Second, the note does not end with the note's author, but with the abbreviation "h. 1.". Third, the second character in that abbreviation seems to be the numeral "one" and not a lower case letter L. I interpret it this way: The text should read "et Wott. ad h.l. GALL.".
I. This is the optative of wish/desire.