Psalm 100:3 — “and not we ourselves”, or “and his we are”?
Psalm 100:3 has both “and not we ourselves” and “and his we are” readings. The written Masoretic Text has ולא, while the marginal qere has ולו.
What the APB prints.
Every witness, on the record.
What a blind committee did here.
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Whatever it did at this verse, it did on the language alone — and its record is public.
The committee record supplies no rationale note for this crux. The APB text itself prints reading B in Psalm 100:3: “He made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people and the flock of his pasturing.” For Psalm 100:1-5, the audit verdict is “clean.”
The case for each reading.
If “his we are”
Reading A follows the Masoretic qere, the marginal reading ולו: “and his we are.” In this form, the clause after “He made us” states belonging: “and his we are.” The verse then continues with “his people and the flock of his pasturing,” so the qere’s possessive wording sits alongside the verse’s later descriptions of belonging and care. The packet identifies this as the line most modern translations print. Its support here is specifically the Masoretic marginal reading, rather than the written ketiv.
If “not we ourselves”
Reading B follows the written Masoretic Text, the ketiv ולא: “and not we ourselves.” The supplied APB text prints this form: “He made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people and the flock of his pasturing.” In that wording, the clause denies self-making before the verse identifies the people as his and as the flock of his pasturing. The packet describes the difference as an alef/vav homophone, with the written text denying and the margin possessing. Its support here is the written Masoretic Text.
The packet preserves both a written reading and a marginal reading, but gives no rationale note that resolves their relation. The difference changes whether the clause denies self-making or states possession. Either form remains within a verse that calls the LORD God and speaks of his people and the flock of his pasturing. The packet supplies no basis for a wider doctrinal conclusion.
More places where the manuscripts argue.
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. Nothing on this page declares a winner — the evidence is the point.
Weigh it yourself.
The registry doesn't tell you which reading is true. It puts every witness on one page, shows what a blind committee did with the same language, and leaves the verdict where it belongs — with the reader.