Psa 11:1 | KD | STEP | David rejects the advice of his friends to save his life by flight. Hidden in Jahve ( ; ) he needs no other refuge. However well-meant and well-grounded the advice, he considers it too full of fear and is himself too confident in God, to follow it. David also introduces his friends as speaking in other passages in the Psalms belonging to the period of the Absolom persecution, ; Psa 4:7. Their want of courage, which he afterwards had to reprove and endeavour to restore, showed itself even before the storm had burst, as we see here. With the words “how can you say” he rejects their proposal as unreasonable, and turns it as a reproach against them. If the Chethîb , נוּדוּ, is adopted, then those who are well-disposed, say to David, including with him his nearest subjects who are faithful to him: retreat to your mountain, (ye) birds (צפּור collective as in ; ); or, since this address sounds too derisive to be appropriate to the lips of those who are supposed to be speaking here: like birds ( comparatio decurtata as in ; ; ; ). הרכס which seems more natural in connection with the vocative rendering of צפור (cf. with ) may also be explained, with the comparative rendering, without any need for the conjecture הר כמו צפור (cf. ), as a retrospective glance at the time of the persecution under Saul: to the mountains, which formerly so effectually protected you (cf. ; ). But the Kerî , which is followed by the ancient versions, exchanges נודו for גוּדי, cf שׁחי Isa 51:23. Even reading it thus we should not take צפור, which certainly is epicoene, as vocative: flee to your mountain, O bird (Hitz.); and for this reason, that this form of address is not appropriate to the idea of those who profer their counsel. But we should take it as an equation instead of a comparison: fly to your mountain (which gave you shelter formerly), a bird, i.e., after the manner of a bird that flies away to its mountain home when it is chased in the plain. But this Kerî appears to be a needless correction, which removes the difficulty of נודו coming after לנפשׁי, by putting another in the place of this synallage numeri . In the faint-hearted ones give as the ground of their advice, the fearful peril which threatens from the side of crafty and malicious foes. As הנּה implies, this danger is imminent. The perfect overrides the future: they are not only already in the act of bending the bow, they have made ready their arrow, i.e., their deadly weapon, upon the string (יתר = מיתר, , Arab. watar , from יתר, wata ra , to stretch tight, extend, so that the thing is continued in one straight line) and even taken aim, in order to discharge it (ירה with ל of the aim, as in , with acc . of the object) in the dark (i.e., secretly, like an assassin) at the upright (those who by their character are opposed to them). In the faint-hearted still further support their advice from the present total subversion of justice. השּׁתות are either the highest ranks, who support the edifice of the state, according to , or, according to , , the foundations of the state, upon whom the existence and well-being of the land depends. We prefer the latter, since the king and those who are loyal to him, who are associated in thought with צדּיק, are compared to the שׁתות. The construction of the clause beginning with כּי is like Job 38:41. The fut . has a present signification. The perf . in the principal clause, as it frequently does elsewhere (e.g., ; ; ; Num 23:10; ; 2Ki 20:9) in interrogative sentences, corresponds to the Latin conjunctive (here quid fecerit ), and is to be expressed in English by the auxiliary verbs: when the bases of the state are shattered, what can the righteous do? he can do nothing. And all counter-effort is so useless that it is well to be as far from danger as possible.

‏ Psalms 11:1

David rejects the advice of his friends to save his life by flight. Hidden in Jahve (Psa 16:1; Psa 36:8) he needs no other refuge. However well-meant and well-grounded the advice, he considers it too full of fear and is himself too confident in God, to follow it. David also introduces his friends as speaking in other passages in the Psalms belonging to the period of the Absolom persecution, Psa 3:3; Psa 4:7. Their want of courage, which he afterwards had to reprove and endeavour to restore, showed itself even before the storm had burst, as we see here. With the words “how can you say” he rejects their proposal as unreasonable, and turns it as a reproach against them. If the Chethîb, נוּדוּ, is adopted, then those who are well-disposed, say to David, including with him his nearest subjects who are faithful to him: retreat to your mountain, (ye) birds (צפּור collective as in Psa 8:9; Psa 148:10); or, since this address sounds too derisive to be appropriate to the lips of those who are supposed to be speaking here: like birds (comparatio decurtata as in Psa 22:14; Psa 58:9; Psa 24:5; Psa 21:8). הרכס which seems more natural in connection with the vocative rendering of צפור (cf. Isa 18:6 with Eze 39:4) may also be explained, with the comparative rendering, without any need for the conjecture הר כמו צפור (cf. Deu 33:19), as a retrospective glance at the time of the persecution under Saul: to the mountains, which formerly so effectually protected you (cf. 1Sa 26:20; 1Sa 23:14). But the Kerî, which is followed by the ancient versions, exchanges נודו for גוּדי, cf שׁחי Isa 51:23. Even reading it thus we should not take צפור, which certainly is epicoene, as vocative: flee to your mountain, O bird (Hitz.); and for this reason, that this form of address is not appropriate to the idea of those who profer their counsel. But we should take it as an equation instead of a comparison: fly to your mountain (which gave you shelter formerly), a bird, i.e., after the manner of a bird that flies away to its mountain home when it is chased in the plain. But this Kerî appears to be a needless correction, which removes the difficulty of נודו coming after לנפשׁי, by putting another in the place of this synallage numeri. ^{▼▼According to the above rendering: “Flee ye to your mountain, a bird” it would require to be accented נודו הרכם צפוז (as a transformation from נודו הרכם צפור vid., Baer’s Accentssystem XVIII. 2). The interpunction as we have it, נודו הרכם צפור, harmonises with the interpretation of Varenius as of Löb Spira (Pentateuch-Comm. 1815): Fugite (o socii Davidis), mons vester (h. e. praesidium vestrum, Psa 30:8, cui innitimini) est avis errans.}

In Psa 11:2 the faint-hearted ones give as the ground of their advice, the fearful peril which threatens from the side of crafty and malicious foes. As הנּה implies, this danger is imminent. The perfect overrides the future: they are not only already in the act of bending the bow, they have made ready their arrow, i.e., their deadly weapon, upon the string (יתר = מיתר, Psa 21:13, Arab. watar, from יתר, wata ra, to stretch tight, extend, so that the thing is continued in one straight line) and even taken aim, in order to discharge it (ירה with ל of the aim, as in Psa 54:5, with acc. of the object) in the dark (i.e., secretly, like an assassin) at the upright (those who by their character are opposed to them). In Psa 11:3 the faint-hearted still further support their advice from the present total subversion of justice. השּׁתות are either the highest ranks, who support the edifice of the state, according to Isa 19:10, or, according to Psa 82:5, Eze 30:4, the foundations of the state, upon whom the existence and well-being of the land depends. We prefer the latter, since the king and those who are loyal to him, who are associated in thought with צדּיק, are compared to the שׁתות. The construction of the clause beginning with כּי is like Job 38:41. The fut. has a present signification. The perf. in the principal clause, as it frequently does elsewhere (e.g., Psa 39:8; Psa 60:11; Gen 21:7; Num 23:10; Job 12:9; 2Ki 20:9) in interrogative sentences, corresponds to the Latin conjunctive (here quid fecerit), and is to be expressed in English by the auxiliary verbs: when the bases of the state are shattered, what can the righteous do? he can do nothing. And all counter-effort is so useless that it is well to be as far from danger as possible.