Critical Notes. .שמרני probably (cii.(1).) 3. .ממני .4- מעבדך Insert Read The text is in disorder, and we must begin to remedy this by seeking for a verb.-30. We need mention of those who cause the speaker's anxiety. Following the parallel of 2 S. i. 26 let us take as a corruption of , and this as a scribe's error for the plural ,ים = as יום in וס and as elsewhere let us regard ; ישמעאל מהר cp. on lvi. 9).-Onit) מירחמאלים Read ביום אקרא--.(18 termination. Ready (so also by preference in lix. 17, lxix. (and so best in Ixix. 18).- ready (as dittographed lxix. 18). very defective parallelism is now cured. G at any rate supports for (ὡσεὶ καπνός). which, as ,הִכִּי and insert הָרְבָה read (? הִכָּה =) הוּכָה f. For 9 well as, underlies . Parallelism requires the insertion of ; strictly, two letters of this ( and ) exist already in the superfluous of M (and G). כי 11. ; see preceding note.-. Read in (xxxv. 14, xxxviii. 7). ND, followed (v. 6a) by Nipp. The ordinary text is surely most unsatisfactory. The two pairs of words are preferable to because nearer to the original reading, which was is לחמי but ,מאכל is better than מקול .to be regarded as variants ימאן represents אנחתי .(19 .cp. on 2 S. xxi) ירחמאל doubtless We should have expected my tongue דָּבְקָה עַצְמִי לִבְשָׂרִי The scribe mistook for Л, and transposed the letters. 12. cleaves to my gums' (cp. xxii. 16). What we find is usually explained as a reminiscence of Job xix. 20, where, however, the text is obviously in וְנִדְכּוּ עֲצָמַי מישמעאל some disorder (see Budde and Duhm). Read here may די ; ישמעאל in Ezek. xxiii. 6, comes from לבשי like לבש represent D. 15 f. We expect some progress beyond the quiet melancholy suggested in l. 13 f.; something like Iv. 3-9 would be perfectly in place. Linguistically and exegetically by T is suspicious. Why 'solitary on the roof'? A timid bird shrinks from the haunts of men. And does such a word as 771 exist elsewhere in the O.T.? We cannot appeal with confidence to Isa. xiv. 31, Hos. viii. 9, for in both passages corruption is suspected. Let us take an idea from Hos. viii. 9, Read ירחמאל probably represents בודד לו (where (see note The changes involved רָגַזְתִּי וָאֶחֱרָד כְּצִפּוֹר עַל־גִּדְּפִי ירחמאלים are quite regular. 77 and y, it is here assumed, have changed places, ie. when became corrupt transposition became an That the exegetical necessity. T is supported by T (alt.), Pesh., and Heb. MSS.; cp. Isa. xvi. 2, Prov. xxvii. 8.-yaya. That the first word is wrong, must be admitted. A parallel for the Pual part. with suffix does not appear to have been found (cp. Kautzsch-Ges., § 116 i; Kön., Synt., § 23). G S imply, my praisers.' Duhm, himp (Poel), but would this mean 'those who mock at me'? cp. Isa. xliv. 25. If the text is right, we should prefer, those that profaned me' (cp. Ezek. xxviii. 9). But is it right? Not only but awı ‘a excites surprise. This phrase is explained by the critics, 'use my name in their oaths' (cp. Isa. lxv. 15, Jer. xxix. 22). But could the name of Israel be used in imprecations of ruin except when a people was referred to, and this can hardly have been a frequent occurrence? The analogy of in Gen. v. 12 &c. suggests that (cp. G) comes = שמואל in I Chr. xxiii. 16 for שבואל and that of ירחמאלים from favour the view that,ישמעאל I S. xiii. 18, also for ,צבעים and, ישמעאל In other .אויבי a gloss on ירחמאלים ישמעאלים we should read words, the gloss has supplanted a line of the true text. 23 f. According to Duhm, vv. 24 and 25a are a quotation from another poem in a different metre. But how can we speak confidently of metre till the text has been thoroughly examined? All that we can say at once is, that either v. 12 is superfluous or vv. 24, 25a. One could more easily spare the former passage, which is not only commonplace but deficient in parallelism. But the Hebrew of vv. 24, 25a is not at all smooth, whereas the psalm in general is smooth. Nor have we a clear right to separate v. 25a from v. 256; indeed, Duhm himself in his German Psalmen makes the 'quotation' include v. 256. Nothing but familiarity with types of textual corruption can help us. It is probable (see exeg. n.) that v. 12 and v. 24 f. have sprung from the same original. represents (25 .7) אמר אלי אל-תעלני One can see at once that (twice), and it then becomes very probable that both in v. 24 f. and in v. 12 represents D. Little less probable is it that Tin v. 256 represents, and that in v. 12 either represents this word or (preferably), in conjunction with N (=DNI), 8. In truth, we require both these words for parallelism, and it is not impossible that wy in v. 12 may come from [7]. In vv. 24 f. and clearly have the same original-probably which may also underlie in v. 12. otherwise see on lxxii. 5, end-might represent 717) may stand for which) בדור דורים,If so ענה בדרך כחו in v. 12 and איבש It only remains to explain גבורים a variant,ישמעאל often) seems to represent ישב like) איבש .24 .7 in ; ארמנותי ירחמאל בְּחַד may come from ענה בד' כ' and, ירחמאל to 777, generally with some added letter or letters, several times represents Saan (e.g. 7, Zech. ix. 1). Read therefore as an approximation to the true text, which at any rate is partly right, and adequately conveys the original writer's meaning, אַרְמְנוֹתַי ירחמאל כְּחַד בְּחִצי גבורים משכנותי Of course, the present form of v. 256 was produced under the influence of the inserted passage, vv. 26—28. (CII.(2) 1. Omit before П (redactional). So Duhm. 3. Read ny, with Grätz.-10. With Duhm, read (G) and append ; הָעַרְעָר II. I בכבודו metre), which easily fell out after) בְּקִרְבָּהּ G τῶν ταπεινῶν (11) ?); Α Σ τοῦ ἐκκεκενωμένον. Grätz follows G, but a better correction is DON (cp. v. 21a).-M л. A repetition. Read ; G tùv dénoiv avtŵv (cp. G, vi. 10). : 16. Omit the superfluous Yahwè; lines 16 and 17 now agree metrically.-17. Read DON (parallelism); cp. G.-18. (CII)) 6. M. The verb being masc., read (Duhm). TRIMETERS. PSALM CIII. Thanksgiving to Yahwè, whose characteristic attributes of mercy and longsuffering the reversal of Israel's unhappy lot in the Messianic age (here represented as past) splendidly exemplifies. The original psalm appears to have been manipulated with a view to adapt it to the wants of a later generation, which had nothing to fear from N. Arabians. At the same time liturgical doxologies were added, perhaps in lieu of some omitted lines. Psalms ciii. and civ. appear to have been used liturgically in combination. Hence the closing line. The speaker, as Smend (p. 130) rightly sees, is the community. So also Coblenz (pp. 68 f.). And all that is within me (bless) his holy name. O my soul! bless Yahwè, And forget not all his benefits; I 20 Righteous acts doth Yahwè perform, Nor keep his anger for ever. He has not dealt with us after our sins, Nor requited us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, 6 7 8 σ ΙΟ II 12 He has removed our transgressions from us. his sons, 13 14 Liturgical addition to the adapted psalm (ll. 1–38). Bless Yahwè, ye his angels, Ye heroes in strength, that perform his word, Bless Yahwè, all his host, See I. O my soul, bless Yahwè. Israel is the true 'son of man,' 'the world's high priest,' who 'doth_present-The sacrifice for all' (G. Her bert). Cp. a striking passage of Philo (OP, 366).-5 ff. The national sins have been pardoned; as a pledge of this, prosperity in its highest form has been granted. Cp. Isa. xl. 2.— 7. ; see on xvi. 10.-9 f. House of Arabia, rather than 'house of servants;' parallel here to 'Cushan,' and in Ex. xiii. 3, &c., to Mişrim. crit. n., and cp. Isa. xi. 11 (note in Crit. Bib.), also Ps. cvi. 47, cvii. 3. The received text labours under insuperable difficulties, including that of explaining how the eagle 'renews its youth' differently from other birds.15 ff. Cp. on lxxxvi. 5, 15.—17 f. Cp. Isa. lvii. 11, - Jer. iii. 5 (794).— 21. Cp. xxxvi. 6.-28. Cp. lxxviii. 39, lxxxix. 48.-29 ff. Cp. xcii. 7, Isa. xl. 6-8. The writer thinks specially of the powers hostile to Israel.-35 f. For this limitation of the divine hesed, cp. Ex. xx. 6, xxxiv. 7, Dt. vii. 9.39 f. The surviving Jerahmeelites are incorporated in the community of worshippers of Yahwè. Cp. especially xxix. I, &c. (crit. note), Isa. xix. 24 f., = 22 lxvi. 21 (Crit. Bib.), and see following note. Addition. 1. Ye his angels. Cp. cxlviii. 2. The reference to the angels comes in well after v. 19a. At the same time the original reference (?) to the Jerahmeelites is also a natural sequel to the declaration that Yahwe from his heavenly throne rules even over those who once denied his power (cp. xi. 5 ff., xiv. 3).-2. Heroes (01), as in Joel. iv. (iii.) II; also of Yahwè, xxiv. 8, lxxviii. 65.3. To hearken, &c. Awkwardly connected (see crit. note on /. 40, above). -4. All his host. Can the 'host' be Ol. distinguished from the angels? and Gr. think of the stars (regarded as animated, cp. Job xxxviii. 7); Bä. agrees, but would add forces of nature like winds and fire, civ. 4. Hitz. and Del. prefer the lower angels, the 'heroes' of . 2 being, as they think, the archangels. The difficulty seems to have arisen through the transformation of 'Jerahmeelites' into angels. At any rate, there is no reason to think that the later editor distinguished between angels' and 'host.' By both phrases he meant the divine powers of the beyond, the spiritual world, called by him heaven' (cp. OP, 314). 6 Critical Notes. 9, 10. (1) Our first difficulty is with TV. We must remember that the soul is addressed. Ty, therefore, cannot be a paraphrastic expression for 'thy soul,' even if, with G, we explain 'soul here as 'appetite' (Tv éniovμíav σov). Nor can 'thy body' (S) be meant, for if anything is to be called 'ornament,' it is not the body but the soul. The latest suggestion is that of Nestle (ZATW, 1899, p. 182), who supposes the reading to underlie, Σ (τηv èñɩμovýν σov, Field) and perhaps T; cp. civ. 33, cxlvi. 2? This does not help. Plainly the final letter is one of those which are or may be corrupt; otherwise why is not the form of the suffix the same as elsewhere, viz. — or '? (2) The next difficulty is in . With a we expect, without a preposition. The third (c) is the change of construction in , and the fourth (d) the exegetical one (7. 10) mentioned above. It would seem that the corruption of the text must be deeply seated; every word, |