Psa 18:49 | KD | STEP | (Hebrew_Bible_18:50-51) The praise of so blessed a God, who acts towards David as He has promised him, shall not be confined within the narrow limits of Israel. When God’s anointed makes war with the sword upon the heathen, it is, in the end, the blessing of the knowledge of Jahve for which he opens up the way, and the salvation of Jahve, which he thus mediatorially helps on. Paul has a perfect right to quote of this Psalm ( ), together with and , as proof that salvation belongs to the Gentiles also, according to the divine purpose of mercy. What is said in as the reason and matter of the praise that shall go forth beyond Israel, is an echo of the Messianic promises in which is perfectly reconcileable with the Davidic authorship of the Psalm, as Hitzig acknowledges. And Theodoret does not wrongly appeal to the closing words עד־עולם against the Jews. In whom, but in Christ, the son of David, has the fallen throne of David any lasting continuance, and in whom, but in Christ, has all that has been promised to the seed of David eternal truth and reality? The praise of Jahve, the God of David, His anointed, is, according to its ultimate import, a praising of the Father of Jesus Christ. On the differences of the introductory superscription, see on Psa 18:1. The relation of the prose accentuation of the Psalm in 2 Sam 22 to the poetical accentuation in the Psalter is instructive. Thus, for example, instead of Mercha mahpach . ( Olewejored ) in the Psalter we here find Athnach ; instead of the Athnach following upon Mercha mahpach ., here is Zakeph (cf. , , with , , ); instead of Rebia mugrash, here Tiphcha (cf. with ); instead of Pazer at the beginning of a verse, here Athnach (cf. with ). The peculiar mode of writing the stichs, in which we find this song in our editions, is the old traditional mode. If a half-line is placed above a half-line, so that they form two columns, it is called לבנה על־גבי לבנה אריח על־גבי אריח, brick upon brick, a half-brick upon a half-brick, as the song Haazinu in Deut 32 is set out in our editions. On the other hand if the half-lines appear as they do here divided and placed in layers one over another, it is called אריח על־גבי לבנה ולבנה על־גבי אריח. According to Megilla 16 b all the cantica in the Scriptures are to be written thus; and according to Sofrim xiii., Ps 18 has this form in common with 2 Sam 22. This strophe is stunted by the falling away of its monostichic introit, Psa 18:2. In consequence of this, the vocatives in Psa 18:2. are deprived of their support and lowered to substantival clauses: Jahve is my Rock , etc., which form no proper beginning for a hymn. Instead of וּמפלּטי we have, as in , ומפלטי־לי; and instead of אלי צוּרי we find אלהי צוּרי, which is contrary to the usual manner of arranging these emblematical names. The loss the strophe sustains is compensated by the addition: and my Refuge, my Saviour, who savest me from violence . In as in the non-assimilated מן (cf. , ; ) is shortened into an assimilated one. May לּי perhaps be the remains of the obliterated אלי, and אלהי, as it were, the clothing of the צוּרי which was then left too bare? The connection of this strophe with the preceding by כּי accords with the sense, but is tame. On the other hand, the reading משׁבּרי instead of חבלי (even though the author of may have thus read it) is commended by the parallelism, and by the fact, that now the latter figure is not repeated in , 2Sa 22:6. משׁברי are not necessarily waves that break upon the shore, but may also be such as break one upon another, and consequently אפפוּני is not inadmissible. The ו of ונחלי, which is not wanted, is omitted. Instead of the fuller toned from סבבוּני, which is also more commensurate with the closing cadence of the verse, we have here the usual syncopated סבּוּני (cf. ). The repetition of the אקרא (instead of אשׁוּע) is even more unpoetical than the repetition of חבלי would be. On the other hand, it might originally have been ויּשׁמע instead of ישׁמע; without ו it is an expression (intended retrospectively) of what takes place simultaneously, with ו it expresses the principal fact. The concluding line ושׁועתי בּאזניו is stunted: the brief substantival clause is not meaningless (cf. ; ), but is only a fragment of the more copious, fuller toned conclusion of the strophe which we find in the Psalter. The Kerî here obliterates the significant alternation of the Kal and Hithpa . of גּעשׁ. Instead of וּמוסדי we have the feminine form of the plural מוסדות (as in both texts in ) without ו. Instead of the genitive הרים, by an extension of the figure, we have השׁמים (cf. the pillars, ), which is not intended of the mountains as of Atlasses, as it were, supporting the heavens, but of the points of support and central points of the heavens themselves: the whole universe trembles. Instead of the pictorial ויּדא ( , and hence in Jeremiah), which is generally used of the flight of the eagle, we have the plain, uncoloured ויּרא He appeared . Instead of ישׁת, which is intended as an aorist, we meet the more strictly regular, but here, where so many aorists with ו come together, less poetical ויּשׁת. In the rise and fall of the parallel members has grown over till it forms one heavy clumsy line: And made darkness round about Him a pavilion (סכּות). But the ἁπ. λεγ. חשׁרת, to which the signification of a “massive gathering together” is secured by the Arabic, is perhaps original. The word Arab. ḥšr , frequently used in the Koran of assembling to judgment, with the radical signification stipare, cogere (to crowd together, compress) which is also present in Arab. ḥšâ , ḥâš , ḥšd , is here used like ἀγείρειν in the Homeric νεφεληγρέτα (the cloud-gatherer). is terribly mutilated. Of עביו עררו ברד ו of the other text there are only the four letters בּערוּ (as in ) left. Instead of ויּרעם we find ירעם, which is less admissible here, where a principal fact is related and the description is drawing nearer and nearer to its goal. Instead of מן־שׁמים the other text has בּשּׁמים; in also, מן is retained without being assimilated before שׁ. But the fact, however, that the line בּרד וגחלי־אשׁ is wanting, is a proof, which we welcome, that it is accidentally repeated from the preceding strophe, in the other text. On the other hand, חצּים is inferior to חצּיו; וּברקים רב is corrupted into a tame בּרק; and the Kerî ויּהם erroneously assumes that the suffix of ויפיצם refers to the arrows, i.e., lightnings. Again on the other hand, אפיקי ים, channels of the sea, is perhaps original; מים in this connection expresses too little, and, as being the customary word in combination with אפיקי ( ; ), may easily have been substituted after it. At any rate ים and תּבל form a more exact antithesis. יגּלוּ instead of ויּגּלוּ is the same in meaning. The close of the strophe is here also weakened by the obliteration of the address to God: by (בּ instead of the מ of the other text) the threatening of Jahve, at the snorting of His breath of anger. The change of the preposition in this surge (so-to-speak) of the members of the verse is rather interruptive than pleasing. The variant משּׂנאי instead of ומשׂאני is unimportant; but משׁען instead of למשׁען, for a support , is less pleasing both as it regards language and rhythm. The resolution of ויוציאני into אתי...ויּצא is a clumsy and needless emphasising of the me . Instead of כּצדקי, we find כּצדקתי here and in , contrary to usage of the language of the Psalms (cf. with 1Ki 8:32). Instead of the poetical אסיר מנּי ( ; ) we have אסוּר ממּנּה (with the fem . used as a neuter), according to the common phrase in 2Ki 3:3, and frequently (cf. ). Instead of ואהי, the not less (e.g., ) usual ואהיה; and instead of ואשׁתּמּר, the form with ah of direction which occurs very frequently with the first person of the fut . convers . in the later Hebrew, although it does also occur even in the older Hebrew ( ; , ; ). And instead of עמּו we find לו, which does not commend itself, either as a point of language or of rhythm; and by comparison with , , it certainly is not original. On כּצדקתי see 2Sa 22:21. כּברי is without example, since elsewhere (כּפּים) בּר ידים is the only expression for innocence. In the equally remarkable expression גּבּור תּמים ( the upright “man of valour” ), גבור is used just as in the expression גּבּור חיל. The form תּתּבר, has only the sound of an assimilated Hithpa . like תּתּמּם (= תתתמם), and is rather a reflexive of the Hiph . הבר after the manner of the Aramaic Ittaphal (therefore = תּתּכרר); and the form תּתּפּל sounds altogether like a Hithpa . from תּפל (thou showest thyself insipid, absurd, foolish), but - since תּפלה cannot be ascribed to God ( ), and is even unseemly as an expression - appears to be treated likewise as an Ittaphal with a kind of inverted assimilation = תּתהפתּל (Böttcher). They are contractions such as are sometimes allowed by the dialect of the common people, though contrary to all rules. ואת instead of כּי at the beginning of changes what is confirmatory into a mere continuation of the foregoing. One of the most sensible variations is the change of ועינים רמות to ועיניך על־רמים. The rendering: And Thine eyes (are directed down) upon the haughty that Thou mayst bring (them) low (Stier, Hengst., and others), violates the accentuation and is harsh so far as the language is concerned (תּשׁפּיל for להשׁפּלם). Hitzig renders it, according to the accents: And Thou lowerest Thine eyes against the proud, השׁפיל עימים = הפיל פנים ( ). But one would expect בּ instead of על, if this were the meaning. It is better to render it according to : And Thou dost cast down Thine eyes upon the haughty , in which rendering the haughty are represented as being far beneath Jahve notwithstanding their haughtiness, and the “casting down or depressing of the eyes” is an expression of the utmost contempt ( despectus ). Here in תּאיר has been lost, for Jahve is called, and really is, אור in , but not נר. The form of writing גיר is an incorrect wavering between נר and ניר. The repetition יהוה ויהוה, by which the loss of תאיר, and of אלהי in , is covered, is inelegant. We have בּכה here instead of בּך, as twice besides in the Old Testament. The form of writing ארוּץ, as shows, does not absolutely require that we should derive it from רוּץ; nevertheless רוּץ can be joined with the accusative just as well as דּלּג, in the sense of running against, rushing upon; therefore, since the parallelism is favourable, it is to be rendered: by Thee I rush upon a troop . The omission of the ו before בּאלהי is no improvement to the rhythm. The variety of expression in which has been preserved in the other text is lost here. Instead of המאזרני חיל we find, as if from a faded MS, חיל מעוּזי (according to Norzi מעוּזי) my refuge (lit., hiding) of strength, i.e., my strong refuge, according to a syntactically more elegant style of expression (= מעוזי מעוז חיל), like ; ; ; vid., Nägelsbach §63, g, where it is correctly shown, that this mode of expression is a matter of necessity in certain instances. The form of writing, מעוּזי, seems here to recognise a מעוז, a hiding-place, refuge, = Arab. m‛âd , which is different from מעז a fortress (from עזז); but just as in every other case the punctuation confuses the two substantives (vid., on ), so it does even here, since מעוז, from עוּז, ought to be inflected מעוּזי, like מנוּסי, and not מעוּזי. Nevertheless the plena scriptio may avail to indicate to us, that here מעוז is intended to by a synonym of מחסה. Instead of (תמים דרכי) ויּתּן we have ויּתּר here; perhaps it is He let, or caused, my way to be spotless, i.e., made it such. Thus Ewald renders it by referring to the modern Arabic hllâ , to let, cause Germ. lassen , French faire = to make, effect; even the classic ancient Arabic language uses trk (Lassen) in the sense of j'l (to make), e.g., “I have made (Arab. taraktu ) the sword my camp-companion,” i.e., my inseparable attendant (lit., I have caused it to be such), as it is to be translated in Nöldeck'e Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Poesie der alten Araber , S. 131. Or does התּיר retain its full and proper meaning “to unfetter?” This is more probable, since the usage of Hebrew shows no example of התּיר in the post-biblical signification “to allow, permit,” which ought to form the transition to “to cause to be = to effect.” Therefore we may compare on the contrary Koran ix. 15, challu sebı̂ - lahum loose their way, i.e., let them go forth free, and render it: He unfettered, unbound, left to itself, let my way go on as faultless (unobstructed). Hitzig, following the Chethîb דרכו, renders it differently: “and made the upright skip on his way.” But תמים beside דרכו is to be regarded at the outset as its predicate, and התּיר means “to cause to jump up,” , not “to skip along.” Nevertheless, the Chethîb דרכו, which, from the following Chethîb רגליו, bears the appearance of being designed, at any rate seems to have understood תמים personally: He unfettered (expedit) the upright his way, making his feet like etc. The reading ונחת instead of ונחתה, although admissible so far as the syntax is concerned (Ges. §147, a ), injures the flow of the rhythm. The pentastich is stunted here by the falling away of the middle line of : and Thy right hand supported me. Instead of the expressive וענותך (and Thy condescension) we find here וענתך which, in accordance with the usage of the language, does not mean Thy being low (Hengst.), but rather: Thy labour (Böttch.), or more securely: Thine answering, lxx ὑπακοή (i.e., the actual help, wherewith Thou didst answer my prayer). Instead of תּחתּי we find, as also in , , תּחתּני with a verbal suffix, like בּעד in ; it is perhaps an inaccuracy of the common dialect, which confused the genitive and accusative suffix. But instances of this are not wanting even in the written language, Ges. §103, rem. 3. The cohortative תּרדּפת, as frequently, has the sense of a hypothetical antecedent, whether it refers to the present, as in , or to the past as in and here: in case I pursued. In the text in the Psalter it is ואשּׂיגם, here it is ואשׁמידם, by which the echo of Ex 15 is obliterated. And after עד־כלותם how tautological is the ואכלּם which is designed to compensate for the shortening of the verse! The verse, to wit, is shortened at the end, ולא־יכלו קום being transformed into ולא יקוּמוּן. Instead of יפּלוּ, ויפּלוּ is not inappropriate. Instead of ותּאזּרני we find ותּזרני, by a syncope that belongs to the dialect of the people, cf. תּזלי for תּאזלי , מלּף for מאלּף Job 35:11. Of the same kind is תּתּה = נתתּה, an apocope taken from the mouths of the people, with which only רד, Jdg 19:11, if equivalent to ירד, can be compared. The conjunctive ו of ומשׂנאי stands here in connection with אצמיתם as a consec.: my haters, whom I destroyed . The other text is altogether more natural, better conceived, and more elegant in this instance. Instead of ישׁוּעוּ we have ישׁעוּ, a substitution which is just tolerable: they look forth for help, or even: they look up expectantly to their gods, ; Isa 31:1. The two figurative expressions in , however, appear here, in contrast with the other text, in a distorted form: And I pulverised them as the dust of the earth, as the mire of the street did I crush them, I trampled them down . The lively and expressive figure כעפר על־פני רוח is weakened into כעפר־ארץ. Instead of אריקם, we have the overloaded glossarial אדקּם ארקעם. The former (root דק, דך, to break in pieces) is a word that is interchanged with the אריקם of the other text in the misapprehended sense of ארקּם. The latter (root רק, to stretch, to make broad, thin, and compact) looks like a gloss of this אדקם. Since one does not intentionally either crush or trample upon the dirt of the street nor tread it out thin or broad, we must in this instance take not merely כעפר־ארץ but also כטיט־חוצות as expressing the issue or result. The various reading ריבי עמּי proceeds from the correct understanding, that ריבי refers to David’s contentions within his kingdom. The supposition that עמּי is a plur. apoc . and equivalent to עמּים, as it is to all appearance in , and like מנּי = מנּים , has no ground here. The reasonable variation תּשׁמרני harmonises with עמּי: Thou hast kept me (preserved me) for a head of the nations , viz., by not allowing David to become deprived of the throne by civil foes. The two lines of are reversed, and not without advantage. The Hithpa. יתכּחשׁוּ instead of the Piel יכחשׁוּ (cf. ; ) is the reflexive of the latter: they made themselves flatterers (cf. the Niph . : to show themselves flattering, like the ישּׁמעוּ which follows here, audientes se praestabant = obediebant ). Instead of (אזן) לשׁמע we have here, in a similar signification, but less elegant, (אזן) לשׁמוע according to the hearing of the ear , i.e., hearsay. Instead of ויחרגוּ we find ויחגּרוּ, which is either a transposition of the letters as a solecism (cf. פּרץ for פּצר), or used in a peculiar signification. “They gird ( accincti prodeunt )” does not give any suitable meaning to this picture of voluntary submission. But חגר (whence Talmudic חגּר lame) may have signified “to limp” in the dialect of the people, which may be understood of those who drag themselves along with difficulty and reluctance (Hitz.). “Out of their closed placed (castles),” here with the suff. ām instead of êhém . The צוּר thrust into is troublesome. וירם (without any necessity for correcting it to וירם) is optative, cf. ; , Pro 9:16. Instead of ויּדבּר we have וּמריד and who subdueth , which is less significant and so far as the syntax is concerned less elegant. Also here consequently תּחתּני for תּחתּי. Instead of מפלּטי we find וּמוציאי and who bringeth me forth out of my enemies , who surround me - a peculiar form of expression and without support elsewhere (for it is different in ). The poetical אף is exchanged for the prose וּ, מן־קמי for מקּמי, and חמס (אישׁ) for חמסים; the last being a plur . ( , ; ), which is foreign to the genuine Davidic Psalms. The change of position of יהוה in , as well as אזמּר for אזמּרה, is against the rhythm; the latter, moreover, is contrary to custom, ; Psa 108:4. While מדגל of the other text is not pointed מגדּל, but מגדּל, it is corrected in this text from מגדיל into מגדּול tower of salvation - a figure that recalls , , but is obscure and somewhat strange in this connection; moreover, migdol for migdal , a tower, only occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament as a proper name. If we now take one more glance over the mutual relationship of the two texts, we cannot say that both texts equally partake of the original. With the exception of the correct omission of and the readings משׁבּרי, חשׁרת, and אפיקי ים there is scarcely anything in the text of 2 Sam 22 that specially commends itself to us. That this text is a designed, and perhaps a Davidic, revision of the other text (Hengst.), is an assumption that is devoid of reason and appearance; for in 2 Sam 22 we have only a text that varies in some instances, but not a substantially new form of the text. The text in 2 Sam 22, as it has shown us, is founded upon careless written and oral transmission. The rather decided tendency towards a defective form of writing leads one to conjecture the greater antiquity of the copy from which it is taken. It is easy to understand how poetical passages inserted in historical works were less carefully dealt with. It is characteristic of the form of the text of the Psalm in 2 Sam 22, that in not a few instances the licences of popular expression have crept into it. There is some truth in what Böttcher says, when he calls the text in the Psalter the recension of the priests and that in the Second Book of Samuel the recension of the laity.

‏ Psalms 18:49

Psa 18:49-50 (Hebrew_Bible_18:50-51) The praise of so blessed a God, who acts towards David as He has promised him, shall not be confined within the narrow limits of Israel. When God’s anointed makes war with the sword upon the heathen, it is, in the end, the blessing of the knowledge of Jahve for which he opens up the way, and the salvation of Jahve, which he thus mediatorially helps on. Paul has a perfect right to quote Psa 18:50 of this Psalm (Rom 15:9), together with Deu 32:43 and Psa 117:1, as proof that salvation belongs to the Gentiles also, according to the divine purpose of mercy. What is said in Psa 18:50 as the reason and matter of the praise that shall go forth beyond Israel, is an echo of the Messianic promises in 2Sa 7:12-16 which is perfectly reconcileable with the Davidic authorship of the Psalm, as Hitzig acknowledges. And Theodoret does not wrongly appeal to the closing words עד־עולם against the Jews. In whom, but in Christ, the son of David, has the fallen throne of David any lasting continuance, and in whom, but in Christ, has all that has been promised to the seed of David eternal truth and reality? The praise of Jahve, the God of David, His anointed, is, according to its ultimate import, a praising of the Father of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 18 according to the Text of 2 Samuel 22

2Sa 22:1

On the differences of the introductory superscription, see on Psa 18:1. The relation of the prose accentuation of the Psalm in 2 Sam 22 to the poetical accentuation in the Psalter is instructive. Thus, for example, instead of Mercha mahpach. (Olewejored) in the Psalter we here find Athnach; instead of the Athnach following upon Mercha mahpach., here is Zakeph (cf. Psa 18:7, Psa 18:16, Psa 18:31 with 2Sa 22:7, 2Sa 22:16, 2Sa 22:31); instead of Rebia mugrash, here Tiphcha (cf. Psa 18:4 with 2Sa 22:4); instead of Pazer at the beginning of a verse, here Athnach (cf. Psa 18:2 with 2Sa 22:2). ^{▼▼Vid., Baer’s Accentsystem xv., and Thorath Emeth iii. 2 together with S. 44, Anm.}

The peculiar mode of writing the stichs, in which we find this song in our editions, is the old traditional mode. If a half-line is placed above a half-line, so that they form two columns, it is called לבנה על־גבי לבנה אריח על־גבי אריח, brick upon brick, a half-brick upon a half-brick, as the song Haazinu in Deut 32 is set out in our editions. On the other hand if the half-lines appear as they do here divided and placed in layers one over another, it is called אריח על־גבי לבנה ולבנה על־גבי אריח. According to Megilla 16 b all the cantica in the Scriptures are to be written thus; and according to Sofrim xiii., Ps 18 has this form in common with 2 Sam 22.

2Sa 22:2-4

This strophe is stunted by the falling away of its monostichic introit, Psa 18:2. In consequence of this, the vocatives in Psa 18:2. are deprived of their support and lowered to substantival clauses: Jahve is my Rock, etc., which form no proper beginning for a hymn. Instead of וּמפלּטי we have, as in Psa 144:2, ומפלטי־לי; and instead of אלי צוּרי we find אלהי צוּרי, which is contrary to the usual manner of arranging these emblematical names. The loss the strophe sustains is compensated by the addition: and my Refuge, my Saviour, who savest me from violence. In 2Sa 22:4 as in 2Sa 22:49 the non-assimilated מן (cf. 2Sa 22:14, Psa 30:4; Psa 73:19) is shortened into an assimilated one. May לּי perhaps be the remains of the obliterated אלי, and אלהי, as it were, the clothing of the צוּרי which was then left too bare?

2Sa 22:5-7

The connection of this strophe with the preceding by כּי accords with the sense, but is tame. On the other hand, the reading משׁבּרי instead of חבלי (even though the author of Psa 116:3 may have thus read it) is commended by the parallelism, and by the fact, that now the latter figure is not repeated in 2Sa 22:5, 2Sa 22:6. משׁברי are not necessarily waves that break upon the shore, but may also be such as break one upon another, and consequently אפפוּני is not inadmissible. The ו of ונחלי, which is not wanted, is omitted. Instead of the fuller toned from סבבוּני, which is also more commensurate with the closing cadence of the verse, we have here the usual syncopated סבּוּני (cf. Psa 118:11). The repetition of the אקרא (instead of אשׁוּע) is even more unpoetical than the repetition of חבלי would be. On the other hand, it might originally have been ויּשׁמע instead of ישׁמע; without ו it is an expression (intended retrospectively) of what takes place simultaneously, with ו it expresses the principal fact. The concluding line ושׁועתי בּאזניו is stunted: the brief substantival clause is not meaningless (cf. Job 15:21; Isa 5:9), but is only a fragment of the more copious, fuller toned conclusion of the strophe which we find in the Psalter.

2Sa 22:8-10

The Kerî here obliterates the significant alternation of the Kal and Hithpa. of גּעשׁ. Instead of וּמוסדי we have the feminine form of the plural מוסדות (as in both texts in 2Sa 22:16) without ו. Instead of the genitive הרים, by an extension of the figure, we have השׁמים (cf. the pillars, Job 26:11), which is not intended of the mountains as of Atlasses, as it were, supporting the heavens, but of the points of support and central points of the heavens themselves: the whole universe trembles.

2Sa 22:11-13

Instead of the pictorial ויּדא (Deu 28:49, and hence in Jeremiah), which is generally used of the flight of the eagle, we have the plain, uncoloured ויּרא He appeared. Instead of ישׁת, which is intended as an aorist, we meet the more strictly regular, but here, where so many aorists with ו come together, less poetical ויּשׁת. In 2Sa 22:12 the rise and fall of the parallel members has grown over till it forms one heavy clumsy line: And made darkness round about Him a pavilion (סכּות). But the ἁπ. λεγ. חשׁרת, to which the signification of a “massive gathering together” is secured by the Arabic, is perhaps original. The word Arab. ḥšr, frequently used in the Koran of assembling to judgment, with the radical signification stipare, cogere (to crowd together, compress) which is also present in Arab. ḥšâ , ḥâš , ḥšd, is here used like ἀγείρειν in the Homeric νεφεληγρέτα (the cloud-gatherer). ^{▼▼Midrash and Talmud explain it according to the Aramaic “a straining of the clouds,” inasmuch as the clouds, like a sieve, let the drops trickle down to the earth, falling close upon each other and yet separately (B . Taanîth 9 b: מחשרות מים על־גבי קרקע). Kimchi combines חשׁר with קשׁר. But the ancient Arabic ḥšr is the right key to the word. The root of חשׁך and חשׁכּה is perhaps the same (cf. Exo 10:21).}

2Sa 22:13 is terribly mutilated. Of עביו עררו ברד ו of the other text there are only the four letters בּערוּ (as in 2Sa 22:9) left.

2Sa 22:14-16

Instead of ויּרעם we find ירעם, which is less admissible here, where a principal fact is related and the description is drawing nearer and nearer to its goal. Instead of מן־שׁמים the other text has בּשּׁמים; in Psa 30:4 also, מן is retained without being assimilated before שׁ. But the fact, however, that the line בּרד וגחלי־אשׁ is wanting, is a proof, which we welcome, that it is accidentally repeated from the preceding strophe, in the other text. On the other hand, חצּים is inferior to חצּיו; וּברקים רב is corrupted into a tame בּרק; and the Kerî ויּהם erroneously assumes that the suffix of ויפיצם refers to the arrows, i.e., lightnings. Again on the other hand, אפיקי ים, channels of the sea, is perhaps original; מים in this connection expresses too little, and, as being the customary word in combination with אפיקי (Psa 42:2; Joe 1:20), may easily have been substituted after it. At any rate ים and תּבל form a more exact antithesis. יגּלוּ instead of ויּגּלוּ is the same in meaning. The close of the strophe is here also weakened by the obliteration of the address to God: by (בּ instead of the מ of the other text) the threatening of Jahve, at the snorting of His breath of anger. The change of the preposition in this surge (so-to-speak) of the members of the verse is rather interruptive than pleasing.

2Sa 22:17-20

The variant משּׂנאי instead of ומשׂאני is unimportant; but משׁען instead of למשׁען, for a support, is less pleasing both as it regards language and rhythm. The resolution of ויוציאני into אתי...ויּצא is a clumsy and needless emphasising of the me.

2Sa 22:21-24

Instead of כּצדקי, we find כּצדקתי here and in 2Sa 22:25, contrary to usage of the language of the Psalms (cf. Psa 7:9 with 1Ki 8:32). Instead of the poetical אסיר מנּי (Job 27:5; Job 23:12) we have אסוּר ממּנּה (with the fem. used as a neuter), according to the common phrase in 2Ki 3:3, and frequently (cf. Deu 5:32). Instead of ואהי, the not less (e.g., Psa 102:8) usual ואהיה; and instead of ואשׁתּמּר, the form with ah of direction which occurs very frequently with the first person of the fut. convers. in the later Hebrew, although it does also occur even in the older Hebrew (Psa 3:6; Psa 7:5, Gen 32:6; Job 19:20). And instead of עמּו we find לו, which does not commend itself, either as a point of language or of rhythm; and by comparison with 2Sa 22:26, 2Sa 22:27, it certainly is not original.

2Sa 22:25-28

On כּצדקתי see 2Sa 22:21. כּברי is without example, since elsewhere (כּפּים) בּר ידים is the only expression for innocence. In the equally remarkable expression גּבּור תּמים (the upright “man of valour”), גבור is used just as in the expression גּבּור חיל. The form תּתּבר, has only the sound of an assimilated Hithpa. like תּתּמּם (= תתתמם), and is rather a reflexive of the Hiph. הבר after the manner of the Aramaic Ittaphal (therefore = תּתּכרר); and the form תּתּפּל sounds altogether like a Hithpa. from תּפל (thou showest thyself insipid, absurd, foolish), but - since תּפלה cannot be ascribed to God (Job 1:22), and is even unseemly as an expression - appears to be treated likewise as an Ittaphal with a kind of inverted assimilation = תּתהפתּל (Böttcher). They are contractions such as are sometimes allowed by the dialect of the common people, though contrary to all rules. ואת instead of כּי at the beginning of 2Sa 22:28 changes what is confirmatory into a mere continuation of the foregoing. One of the most sensible variations is the change of ועינים רמות to ועיניך על־רמים. The rendering: And Thine eyes (are directed down) upon the haughty that Thou mayst bring (them) low (Stier, Hengst., and others), violates the accentuation and is harsh so far as the language is concerned (תּשׁפּיל for להשׁפּלם). Hitzig renders it, according to the accents: And Thou lowerest Thine eyes against the proud, השׁפיל עימים = הפיל פנים (Jer 3:12). But one would expect בּ instead of על, if this were the meaning. It is better to render it according to Psa 113:6 : And Thou dost cast down Thine eyes upon the haughty, in which rendering the haughty are represented as being far beneath Jahve notwithstanding their haughtiness, and the “casting down or depressing of the eyes” is an expression of the utmost contempt (despectus).

2Sa 22:29-31

Here in 2Sa 22:29 תּאיר has been lost, for Jahve is called, and really is, אור in Psa 27:1, but not נר. The form of writing גיר is an incorrect wavering between נר and ניר. The repetition יהוה ויהוה, by which the loss of תאיר, and of אלהי in 2Sa 22:29, is covered, is inelegant. We have בּכה here instead of בּך, as twice besides in the Old Testament. The form of writing ארוּץ, as Isa 42:4 shows, does not absolutely require that we should derive it from רוּץ; nevertheless רוּץ can be joined with the accusative just as well as דּלּג, in the sense of running against, rushing upon; therefore, since the parallelism is favourable, it is to be rendered: by Thee I rush upon a troop. The omission of the ו before בּאלהי is no improvement to the rhythm.

2Sa 22:32-35

The variety of expression in 2Sa 22:32 which has been preserved in the other text is lost here. Instead of המאזרני חיל we find, as if from a faded MS, חיל מעוּזי (according to Norzi מעוּזי) my refuge (lit., hiding) of strength, i.e., my strong refuge, according to a syntactically more elegant style of expression (= מעוזי מעוז חיל), like Psa 71:7; Lev 6:3; Lev 26:42; vid., Nägelsbach §63, g, where it is correctly shown, that this mode of expression is a matter of necessity in certain instances. ^{▼▼In the present instance מעוז חילי, like מחסה עזּי in Psa 71:7 (cf. Eze 16:27; Eze 18:7, and perhaps Hab 3:8) would not be inadmissible, although in the other mode of expression greater prominence is given to the fact of its being provided and granted by God. But in cases like the following it would be absolutely inadmissible to append the suffix to the nom. rectum, viz., שׂואי שׁקר, Psa 38:20; בּריתי יעקב my covenant with Jacob, Lev 26:42; מדּו בד his garment of linen, Lev 6:3; כּתבם המּתיחשׂים their ancestral register, Ezr 2:62; and it is probable that this transference of the pronominal suffix to the nom. regens originated in instances like these, where it was a logical necessary and then became transferred to the syntax ornata. At the same time it is clear from this, that in cases like שׂנאי שׁקר, and consequently also שׂנאי חנּם, the second notion is not conceived as an accusative of more precise definition, but as a governed genitive.}

The form of writing, מעוּזי, seems here to recognise a מעוז, a hiding-place, refuge, = Arab. m‛âd, which is different from מעז a fortress (from עזז); but just as in every other case the punctuation confuses the two substantives (vid., on Psa 31:3), so it does even here, since מעוז, from עוּז, ought to be inflected מעוּזי, like מנוּסי, and not מעוּזי. Nevertheless the plena scriptio may avail to indicate to us, that here מעוז is intended to by a synonym of מחסה. Instead of (תמים דרכי) ויּתּן we have ויּתּר here; perhaps it is He let, or caused, my way to be spotless, i.e., made it such. Thus Ewald renders it by referring to the modern Arabic hllâ, to let, cause Germ. lassen, French faire = to make, effect; even the classic ancient Arabic language uses trk (Lassen) in the sense of j'l (to make), e.g., “I have made (Arab. taraktu) the sword my camp-companion,” i.e., my inseparable attendant (lit., I have caused it to be such), as it is to be translated in Nöldeck'e Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Poesie der alten Araber, S. 131. ^{▼▼Ibid. S. 133, Z. 13 is, with Fleischer, to be rendered: ye have made (Arab. trktm) my milk camels restless, i.e., caused them to be such, by having stolen them and driven them away so that they now yearn after home and their young ones.}

Or does התּיר retain its full and proper meaning “to unfetter?” This is more probable, since the usage of Hebrew shows no example of התּיר in the post-biblical signification “to allow, permit,” which ought to form the transition to “to cause to be = to effect.” Therefore we may compare on the contrary Koran ix. 15, challu sebı̂ - lahum loose their way, i.e., let them go forth free, and render it: He unfettered, unbound, left to itself, let my way go on as faultless (unobstructed). Hitzig, following the Chethîb דרכו, renders it differently: “and made the upright skip on his way.” But תמים beside דרכו is to be regarded at the outset as its predicate, and התּיר means “to cause to jump up,” Hab 3:6, not “to skip along.” Nevertheless, the Chethîb דרכו, which, from the following Chethîb רגליו, bears the appearance of being designed, at any rate seems to have understood תמים personally: He unfettered (expedit) the upright his way, making his feet like etc. The reading ונחת instead of ונחתה, although admissible so far as the syntax is concerned (Ges. §147, a), injures the flow of the rhythm.

2Sa 22:36-37

The pentastich is stunted here by the falling away of the middle line of 2Sa 22:36 : and Thy right hand supported me. Instead of the expressive וענותך (and Thy condescension) we find here וענתך which, in accordance with the usage of the language, does not mean Thy being low (Hengst.), but rather: Thy labour (Böttch.), or more securely: Thine answering, lxx ὑπακοή (i.e., the actual help, wherewith Thou didst answer my prayer). Instead of תּחתּי we find, as also in 2Sa 22:40, 2Sa 22:48, תּחתּני with a verbal suffix, like בּעד in Psa 139:11; it is perhaps an inaccuracy of the common dialect, which confused the genitive and accusative suffix. But instances of this are not wanting even in the written language, Ges. §103, rem. 3.

2Sa 22:38-41

The cohortative תּרדּפת, as frequently, has the sense of a hypothetical antecedent, whether it refers to the present, as in Psa 139:8, or to the past as in Psa 73:16 and here: in case I pursued. In the text in the Psalter it is ואשּׂיגם, here it is ואשׁמידם, by which the echo of Ex 15 is obliterated. And after עד־כלותם how tautological is the ואכלּם which is designed to compensate for the shortening of the verse! The verse, to wit, is shortened at the end, ולא־יכלו קום being transformed into ולא יקוּמוּן. Instead of יפּלוּ, ויפּלוּ is not inappropriate. Instead of ותּאזּרני we find ותּזרני, by a syncope that belongs to the dialect of the people, cf. תּזלי for תּאזלי Jer 2:36, מלּף for מאלּף Job 35:11. Of the same kind is תּתּה = נתתּה, an apocope taken from the mouths of the people, with which only רד, Jdg 19:11, if equivalent to ירד, can be compared. The conjunctive ו of ומשׂנאי stands here in connection with אצמיתם as a consec.: my haters, whom I destroyed. The other text is altogether more natural, better conceived, and more elegant in this instance.

2Sa 22:42-43

Instead of ישׁוּעוּ we have ישׁעוּ, a substitution which is just tolerable: they look forth for help, or even: they look up expectantly to their gods, Isa 17:8; Isa 31:1. The two figurative expressions in 2Sa 22:43, however, appear here, in contrast with the other text, in a distorted form: And I pulverised them as the dust of the earth, as the mire of the street did I crush them, I trampled them down. The lively and expressive figure כעפר על־פני רוח is weakened into כעפר־ארץ. Instead of אריקם, we have the overloaded glossarial אדקּם ארקעם. The former (root דק, דך, to break in pieces) is a word that is interchanged with the אריקם of the other text in the misapprehended sense of ארקּם. The latter (root רק, to stretch, to make broad, thin, and compact) looks like a gloss of this אדקם. Since one does not intentionally either crush or trample upon the dirt of the street nor tread it out thin or broad, we must in this instance take not merely כעפר־ארץ but also כטיט־חוצות as expressing the issue or result.

2Sa 22:44-46

The various reading ריבי עמּי proceeds from the correct understanding, that ריבי refers to David’s contentions within his kingdom. The supposition that עמּי is a plur. apoc. and equivalent to עמּים, as it is to all appearance in Psa 144:2, and like מנּי = מנּים Psa 45:9, has no ground here. The reasonable variation תּשׁמרני harmonises with עמּי: Thou hast kept me (preserved me) for a head of the nations, viz., by not allowing David to become deprived of the throne by civil foes. The two lines of 2Sa 22:45 are reversed, and not without advantage. The Hithpa. יתכּחשׁוּ instead of the Piel יכחשׁוּ (cf. Psa 66:3; Psa 81:16) is the reflexive of the latter: they made themselves flatterers (cf. the Niph. Deu 33:29 : to show themselves flattering, like the ישּׁמעוּ which follows here, audientes se praestabant = obediebant). Instead of (אזן) לשׁמע we have here, in a similar signification, but less elegant, (אזן) לשׁמוע according to the hearing of the ear, i.e., hearsay. Instead of ויחרגוּ we find ויחגּרוּ, which is either a transposition of the letters as a solecism (cf. פּרץ 2Sa 13:27 for פּצר), or used in a peculiar signification. “They gird (accincti prodeunt)” does not give any suitable meaning to this picture of voluntary submission. But חגר (whence Talmudic חגּר lame) may have signified “to limp” in the dialect of the people, which may be understood of those who drag themselves along with difficulty and reluctance (Hitz.). “Out of their closed placed (castles),” here with the suff. ām instead of êhém.

2Sa 22:47-49

The צוּר thrust into 2Sa 22:47 is troublesome. וירם (without any necessity for correcting it to וירם) is optative, cf. Gen 27:31; Pro 9:4, Pro 9:16. Instead of ויּדבּר we have וּמריד and who subdueth, which is less significant and so far as the syntax is concerned less elegant. Also here consequently תּחתּני for תּחתּי. Instead of מפלּטי we find וּמוציאי and who bringeth me forth out of my enemies, who surround me - a peculiar form of expression and without support elsewhere (for it is different in 2Sa 22:20). The poetical אף is exchanged for the prose וּ, מן־קמי for מקּמי, and חמס (אישׁ) for חמסים; the last being a plur. (Psa 140:2, Psa 140:5; Pro 4:17), which is foreign to the genuine Davidic Psalms.

2Sa 22:50-51

The change of position of יהוה in 2Sa 22:50, as well as אזמּר for אזמּרה, is against the rhythm; the latter, moreover, is contrary to custom, Psa 57:10; Psa 108:4. While מדגל of the other text is not pointed מגדּל, but מגדּל, it is corrected in this text from מגדיל into מגדּול tower of salvation - a figure that recalls Psa 61:4, Pro 18:10, but is obscure and somewhat strange in this connection; moreover, migdol for migdal, a tower, only occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament as a proper name.

If we now take one more glance over the mutual relationship of the two texts, we cannot say that both texts equally partake of the original. With the exception of the correct omission of 2Sa 22:14 and the readings משׁבּרי, חשׁרת, and אפיקי ים there is scarcely anything in the text of 2 Sam 22 that specially commends itself to us. That this text is a designed, and perhaps a Davidic, revision of the other text (Hengst.), is an assumption that is devoid of reason and appearance; for in 2 Sam 22 we have only a text that varies in some instances, but not a substantially new form of the text. The text in 2 Sam 22, as it has shown us, is founded upon careless written and oral transmission. The rather decided tendency towards a defective form of writing leads one to conjecture the greater antiquity of the copy from which it is taken. It is easy to understand how poetical passages inserted in historical works were less carefully dealt with. It is characteristic of the form of the text of the Psalm in 2 Sam 22, that in not a few instances the licences of popular expression have crept into it. There is some truth in what Böttcher says, when he calls the text in the Psalter the recension of the priests and that in the Second Book of Samuel the recension of the laity.