psa 18:0
This psalm is found, with some unimportant variations, in 2 Sam. 22. In that history, as in the inscription of the psalm here, it is said to have been composed by David on the occasion when the Lord "delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul." There can, therefore, be no doubt that David was the author, nor can there be any as to the occasion on which it was composed. It is a song of victory, and is beyond doubt the most sublime ode that was ever composed on such an occasion. David, long pursued and harassed by foes who sought his life, at length felt that a complete triumph was obtained, and that he and his kingdom were safe, and he pours forth the utterances of a grateful heart for God's merciful and mighty interposition, in language of the highest sublimity, and with the utmost grandeur of poetic imagery. Nowhere else, even in the sacred Scriptures, are there to be found images more beautiful, or expressions more sublime, than those which occur in this psalm.
From the place which this psalm occupies in the history of the life of David (2 Sam. 22), it is probable that it was composed in the latter years of his life, though it occupies this early place in the Book of Psalms. We have no reason to believe that the principle adopted in the arrangement of the Psalms was to place them in chronological order; and we cannot determine why in that arrangement this psalm has the place which has been assigned to it; but we cannot well be mistaken in supposing that it was composed at a somewhat advanced period of the life of David, and that it was in fact among the last of his compositions. Thus, in the Book of Samuel, it is placed (1 Sam. 22) immediately preceding a chapter (1 Sam. 23) which professes (Sa1 23:1) to record "the last words of David." And thus in the title it is said to have been composed when "the Lord had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies," an event which occurred only at a comparatively late period of his life.
The circumstance which is mentioned in the title - "and out of the hand of Saul" - does not necessarily conflict with this view, or make it necessary for us to suppose that it was composed immediately after his deliverance from the hand of Saul. To David, recording and recounting the great events of his life, that deliverance would occur as one of the most momentous and worthy of a grateful remembrance, for it was a deliverance which was the foundation of all his subsequent successes, and in which the divine interposition had been most remarkable. At any time of his life it would be proper to refer to this as demanding special acknowledgment. Saul had been among the most formidable of all his enemies. The most distressing and harassing events of his life had occurred in the time of his conflicts with him. God's interpositions in his behalf had occurred in the most remarkable manner, in delivering him from the dangers of that period of his history.
It was natural and proper, therefore, in a general song of praise, composed in view of all God's interpositions in his behalf, that he should refer particularly to those dangers and deliverances. This opinion, that the psalm was composed when David was aged, which seems so obvious, is the opinion of Jarchi and Kimchi, of Rosenmuller and DeWette. The strong imagery, therefore, in the psalm, describing mighty convulsions of nature Psa 18:6-16, is to be understood, not as a literal description, but as narrating God's gracious interposition in the time of danger, "as if" the Lord had spoken to him out of the temple; "as if" the earth had trembled; "as if" its foundations had been shaken; "as if" a smoke had gone out of his nostrils; "as if" he had bowed the heavens and come down; "as if" he had thundered in the heavens, and had sent out hailstones and coals of fire, etc.
From the fact that there are variations, though not of an essential character, in the two copies of the psalm, it would seem not improbable that it had been revised by David himself, or by some other person, after it was first composed, and that one copy was used by the author of the Book of Samuel, and the other by the collector and arranger of the Book of Psalms. These variations are not important, and by no means change the essential character of the psalm. It is not very easy to see why they were made, if they were made designedly, or to account for them if they were not so made. They are such as the following: The introduction, or the title of it, is adapted, in the psalm before us, to the purposes for which it was designed, when it was admitted into the collection. "To the chief Musician, a Psalm of David, the servant of the Lord, who spake unto the Lord the words," etc. The first verse of Ps. 18, "I will love thee, O Lord, my strength," is not found in the psalm as it is in the Book of Samuel. The second verse of the psalm is, "The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower."
In Samuel, the corresponding passage is, "The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; the God of my rock, in him will I trust; he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence." In Psa 18:4, the reading is, "The sorrows of death compassed me" etc.; in Samuel, "The waves of death compassed me." Similar variations, affecting the words, without materially affecting the sense, occur in Psa 18:2-4, Psa 18:6-8, Psa 18:11-16, Psa 18:19-21, Psa 18:23-27, also in Psa 18:28-30, Psa 18:32-45, and Ps. 18:47-51. See these passages arranged in Rosenmuller's Scholia, vol. i., pp. 451-458. In no instance is the sense very materially affected, though the variations are so numerous.
It is impossible now to account for these variations. Hammond, Kennicott, and others, suppose that they occurred from the errors of transcribers. But to this opinion Schultens opposes unanswerable objections. He refers particularly
(a) to the multitude and variety of the changes;
(b) to the condition or state of the codices;
(c) to the nature of the variations, or to the fact that changes are made in words, and not merely in letters of similar forms which might be mistaken for each other.
See his arguments in Rosenmuller, Schol., vol. i., pp. 441-443. It seems most probable, therefore, that these changes were made by design, and that it was done either by David, who revised the original composition. and issued two forms of the poem, one of which was inserted in the history in Samuel, and the other in the collection of the Psalms; or that the changes were made by the collector of the Psalms, when they were arranged for public worship. The former supposition is a possible one; though, as the psalm was composed near the close of the life of David, it would seem not to be very probable. The most natural supposition, therefore, is, that the changes were made by the collector of the Psalms, whoever he might be, or by the person who presided over this part of public worship in the temple, and that the changes were made for some reason which we cannot now understand, as better adapting the psalm to musical purposes.
Doederlein supposes that the recension was made by some later poet, for the purpose of "polishing" the language; of giving it a more finished poetic form; and of adapting it better to public use; and he regards both forms as "genuine, elegant, sublime; the one more ancient, the other more polished and refined." It seems most probable that the changes were made with a view to some rhythmical or musical effect, or for the purpose of adapting the psalm to the music of the temple service. Such changes would depend on causes which could be now little understood, as we are not sufficiently acquainted with the music employed in public worship by the Hebrews, nor are we now competent to understand the effect which, in this respect, would be produced by a slight change of phraseology. Variations of a similar nature now exist in psalms and hymns which could not be well explained or understood by one who was not familiar with our language and with our music, and which, after as long an interval as that between the time when the Psalms were arranged for musical purposes and the present time, would be wholly unintelligible.
The psalm embraces the following subjects:
I. A general acknowledgment of God, and thanks to him, as the Deliverer in the time of troubles, and as worthy to be praised, Psa 18:1-3.
II. A brief description of the troubles and dangers from which the psalmist had been rescued, Psa 18:4-5.
III. A description, conceived in the highest forms of poetic language, of the divine interposition in times of danger, Psa 18:6-19,
IV. A statement of the psalmist that this interposition was of such a nature as to vindicate his own character, or to show that his cause was a righteous cause; that he was right, and that his enemies had been in the wrong; that God approved his course, and disapproved the course of his enemies: or, in other words, that these interpositions were such as to prove that God was just, and would deal with men according to their character, Psa 18:20-30.
V. A recapitulation of what God had done for him, in enabling him to subdue his enemies, and a statement of the effect which he supposed would be produced on others by the report of what God had done in his behalf, Psa 18:31-45.
VI. A general expression of thanksgiving to God as the author of all these blessings, and as worthy of universal confidence and praise, Psa 18:46-50.
Psalm 18:Title
"To the chief Musician." See the notes to the title of Psa 4:1-8.
A Psalm of David - The words "A Psalm" are not here in the original, and may convey a slightly erroneous impression, as if the psalm had been composed for the express purpose of being used publicly in the worship of God. In the corresponding place in 2 Sam. 22, it is described as a "Song" of David: "And David spake unto the Lord the words of this song." It was originally an expression of his private gratitude for God's distinguishing mercies, and was afterward, as we have seen, probably adapted to purposes of public worship by some one of a later age.
The servant of the Lord - This expression also is wanting in 2 Sam. 22. It is undoubtedly an addition by a later hand, as indicating the general character which David had acquired, or as denoting the national estimate in regard to his character. The same expression occurs in the title to Psa 36:1-12. The Aramaic Paraphrase translates this title: "To be sung over the wonderful things which abundantly happened to the servant of the Lord, to David, who sang," etc. The use of the phrase here - "the servant of the Lord" - by him who made the collection of the Psalms, would seem to imply that he regarded the psalm as having a sufficiently public character to make it proper to introduce it into a collection designed for general worship. In other words, David was not, in the view of the author of the collection, a private man, but was eminently a public servant of Yahweh; and a song of grateful remembrance of God's mercies to him was entitled to be regarded as expressing the appropriate feelings of God's people in similar circumstances in all times.
Who spake unto the Lord - Composed it as giving utterance to his feelings toward the Lord.
The words of this song in the day that the Lord delivered him - When the Lord "had" delivered him; when he felt that he was completely rescued from "all" his foes. This does not mean that the psalm was composed on a particular day when God had by some one signal act rescued him from impending danger, but it refers to a calm period of his life. when he could review the past, and see that God had rescued him from "all" the enemies that had ever threatened his peace. This would probably, as has been suggested above, occur near the close of his life.
From the hand of all his enemies - Out of the hand, or the power. There is here a "general" view of the mercy of God in rescuing him from all his foes.
And from the hand of Saul - Saul had been one of his most formidable enemies, and the wars with him had been among the most eventful periods of the life of David. In a general review of his life, near its close, he would naturally recur to the dangers of that period, and to God's gracious interpositions in his behalf, and it would seem to him that what God had done for him in those times deserved a special record. The original word here - כף kaph - is not the same as in the corresponding place in 2 Sam. 22 - יד yâd - though the idea is substantially the same. The word used here means properly the "palm" or "hollow" of the hand; the word used in Samuel means the hand itself. Why the change was made we have not the means of ascertaining.
And he said - So Sa2 22:2. What follows is what he said. Psalms 18:1
psa 18:0
David's Hymnic Retrospect of a Life Crowned with Many Mercies
Next to a תּפּלּה of David comes a שׁירה (nom. unitatis from שׁיר), which is in many ways both in words and thoughts (Symbolae p. 49) interwoven with the former. It is the longest of all the hymnic Psalms, and bears the inscription: To the Precentor, by the servant of Jahve, by David, who spake unto Jahve the words of this song in the day that Jahve had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies and out of the hand of Saûl: then he said. The original inscription of the Psalm in the primary collection was probably only לדוד למנצח לעבד ה, like the inscription of Psa 36:1-12. The rest of the inscription resembles the language with which songs of this class are wont to be introduced in their connection in the historical narrative, Exo 15:1; Num 21:17, and more especially Deu 31:30. And the Psalm before us is found again in 2 Sam 22, introduced by words, the manifestly unaccidental agreement of which with the inscription in the Psalter, is explained by its having been incorporated in one of the histories from which the Books of Samuel are extracted, - probably the Annals (Dibre ha-Jamim) of David. From this source the writer of the Books of Samuel has taken the Psalm, together with that introduction; and from this source also springs the historical portion of the inscription in the Psalter, which is connected with the preceding by אשׁר.
David may have styled himself in the inscription עבד ה, just as the apostles call themselves δοῦλοι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. He also in other instances, in prayer, calls himself "the servant of Jahve," Psa 19:12, Psa 19:14; Psa 144:10; Sa2 7:20, as every Israelite might do; but David, who is the first after Moses and Joshua to bear this designation or by-name, could to so in an especial sense. For he, with whom the kingship of promise began, marks an epoch in his service of the work of God no less than did Moses, through whose mediation Israel received the Law, and Joshua, through whose instrumentality they obtained the Land of promise.
The terminology of psalm-poesy does not include the word שׁירה, but only שׁיר. This at once shows that the historical portion of the inscription comes from some other source. בּיום is followed, not by the infin. הצּיל: on the day of deliverance, but by the more exactly plusquamperf. הצּיל: on the day (בּיום = at the time, as in Gen 2:4, and frequently) when he had delivered - a genitival (Ges. 116, 3) relative clause, like Psa 138:3; Exo 6:28; Num 3:1, cf. Psa 56:10. מיּד alternates with מכּף in this text without any other design than that of varying the expression. The deliverance out of the hand of Saul is made specially prominent, because the most prominent portion of the Psalm, Psa 18:5, treats of it. The danger in which David the was placed, was of the most personal, the most perilous, and the most protracted kind. This prominence was of great service to the collector, because the preceding Psalm bears the features of this time, the lamentations over which are heard there and further back, and now all find expression in this more extended song of praise.
Only a fondness for doubt can lead any one to doubt the Davidic origin of this Psalm, attested as it is in two works, which are independent of one another. The twofold testimony of tradition is supported by the fact that the Psalm contains nothing that militates against David being the author; even the mention of his own name at the close, is not against it (cf. Kg1 2:45). We have before us an Israelitish counterpart to the cuneiform monumental inscriptions, in which the kings of worldly monarchies recapitulate the deeds they have done by the help of their gods. The speaker is a king; the author of the Books of Samuel found the song already in existence as a Davidic song; the difference of his text from that which lies before us in the Psalter, shows that at that time it had been transmitted from some earlier period; writers of the later time of the kings here and there use language which is borrowed from it or are echoes of it (comp. Pro 30:5 with Psa 18:31; Hab 3:19 with Psa 18:34); it bears throughout the mark of the classic age of the language and poetry, and "if it be not David's, it must have been written in his name and by some one imbued with his spirit, and who could have been this contemporary poet and twin-genius?" (Hitzig). All this irresistibly points us to David himself, to whom really belong also all the other songs in the Second Book of Samuel, which are introduced as Davidic (over Saul and Jonathan, over Abner, etc.). This, the greatest of all, springs entirely from the new self-consciousness to which he was raised by the promises recorded in 2 Sam 7; and towards the end, it closes with express retrospective reference to these promises; for David's certainty of the everlasting duration of his house, and God's covenant of mercy with his house, rests upon the announcement made by Nathan.
The Psalm divides into two halves; for the strain of praise begins anew with Psa 18:32, after having run its first course and come to a beautiful close in Psa 18:31. The two halves are also distinct in respect of their artificial form. The strophe schema of the first is: 6. 8. 8. 6. 8 (not 9). 8. 8. 8. 7. The mixture of six and eight line strophes is symmetrical, and the seven of the last strophe is nothing strange. The mixture in the second half on the contrary is varied. The art of the strophe system appears here, as is also seen in other instances in the Psalms, to be relaxed; and the striving after form at the commencement has given way to the pressure and crowding of the thoughts.
The traditional mode of writing out this Psalm, as also the Cantica, 2 Sam 22 and Judg 5, is "a half-brick upon a brick, and a brick upon a half-brick" (אירח על גבי לבנה ולבנה על גבי אריח): i.e., one line consisting of two, and one of three parts of a verse, and the line consisting of the three parts has only one word on the right and on the left; the whole consequently forms three columns. On the other hand, the song in Deut 32 (as also Jos 12:9., Est 9:7-10) is to be written "a half-brick upon a half-brick and a brick upon a brick," i.e., in only two columns, cf. infra p. 168.
Psalm 18 according to the Text of 2 Samuel 22
Sa2 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 Sa2 22:7, Sa2 22:16, Sa2 22:31); instead of Rebia mugrash, here Tiphcha (cf. Psa 18:4 with Sa2 22:4); instead of Pazer at the beginning of a verse, here Athnach (cf. Psa 18:2 with Sa2 22:2).
(Note: 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 16b 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.
Sa2 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 Sa2 22:4 as in Sa2 22:49 the non-assimilated מן (cf. Sa2 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?
Sa2 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 Sa2 22:5, Sa2 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.
Sa2 22:8-10
The Kerמ 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 Sa2 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.
Sa2 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 Sa2 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).
(Note: 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. Taanth 9b: 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).)
Sa2 22:13 is terribly mutilated. Of עביו עררו ברד ו of the other text there are only the four letters בּערוּ (as in Sa2 22:9) left.
Sa2 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 Ker 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.
Sa2 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.
Sa2 22:21-24
Instead of כּצדקי, we find כּצדקתי here and in Sa2 22:25, contrary to usage of the language of the Psalms (cf. Psa 7:9 with Kg1 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 Kg2 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 Sa2 22:26, Sa2 22:27, it certainly is not original.
Sa2 22:25-28
On כּצדקתי see Sa2 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 (Bttcher). 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 Sa2 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).
Sa2 22:29-31
Here in Sa2 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 Sa2 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.
Sa2 22:32-35
The variety of expression in Sa2 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., Nהgelsbach ֗63, g, where it is correctly shown, that this mode of expression is a matter of necessity in certain instances.
(Note: 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 Nldeck'e Beitrge zur Kenntniss der Poesie der alten Araber, S. 131.
(Note: 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 Chethb 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 Chethb דרכו, which, from the following Chethb 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.
Sa2 22:36-37
The pentastich is stunted here by the falling away of the middle line of Sa2 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 (Bttch.), 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 Sa2 22:40, Sa2 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.
Sa2 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.
Sa2 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 Sa2 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.
Sa2 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 Sa2 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 Sa2 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.
Sa2 22:47-49
The צוּר thrust into Sa2 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 Sa2 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.
Sa2 22:50-51
The change of position of יהוה in Sa2 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 Sa2 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 Bttcher 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 18:1