Keil & Delitzsch - OT Commentary on the Psalter

THE PSALTER

Preface

Seven whole years have passed since the publication of my Commentar ber den Psalter (2 vols. 1859-60), and during this period large and important contributions have been made towards the exposition of the Psalms. Of Hupfelds Commentary the last two volumes (vol. iii., 1860; vol. iv., 1862) have appeared since the completion of my own. Hitzigs (1835-36) has appeared in a new form (2 vols., 1863-65), enriched by the fruit of nearly thirty years progressive study. And the Commentary of Ewald has taken the field for the third time (1866), with proud words scorning down all fellow-workers, in order that all honour may be given to itself alone. In addition to these, Bttchers Neue Kritische Aehrenlese, issued by Mhlau after the authors death, has furnished valuable contributions towards the exposition of the Psalms (Abth. 2, 1864); Von Ortenberg in the department of textual criticism (Zur Textkritik der Psalmen, 1861), and Kurtz in that of theology (Zur Theologie der Psalmen, in the Dorpater Zeitschrift, 1864-65), have promoted the interpretation of the Psalms; and side by side with these, Bhls Zwlf Messianische Psalmen (Twelve Messianic Psalms, 1862) and Kamphausens exposition of the Psalms in Bunsens Bibelwerk (1863) also claim attention.

I had therefore no lack of external inducement for the revision of my own Commentary; but I was also not unconscious of its defects. Despite all this, Hupfelds inconsiderate and condemnatory judgment caused me pain. In an essay on the faithful representation of the text of the Old Testament according to the Masora (Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1863) I incidentally gave expression to this feeling. On the 20th of October 1863 Hupfeld wrote to me, I have only just seen your complaint of my judgement at the close of my work on the Psalms. The complain is so gentle in its tone, it partakes so little of the bitterness of my verdict, and at the same time strikes chords that are not yet deadened within me, and which have not yet forgotten how to bring back the echo of happier times of common research and to revive the feeling of gratitude for faithful companionship, that it has touched my heart and conscience. He closes his letter with the hope that he may one day have an opportunity of expressing publicly how that harsh and untempered judgment is now repugnant to his own feelings. Up to the present time I have made no use whatever of this letter. I regarded it as a private matter between ourselves. Since, however, Riehm has transferred that judgment unaltered to the second edition of the first volume of the Commentary of Hupfeld, I owe it not to myself alone, but also to him who is since deceased, to explain that this has not been done in accordance with his wish.

Hitzigs new Commentary has been of the greatest service to me in the revision and re-working of my own. In it I found mine uniformly taken into account from beginning to end, either with or without direct mention, and subjected to severe but kindly- disposed criticism; and here and there not without a ready recognition of the scientific advance which could not but be observed in it. In comparison with such an unmerciful judgment as that which Hupfeld pronounced upon me, and which Ewald a few years later with very similar language pronounced upon him, I here met with reasonable criticism of the matter, and, notwithstanding the full consciousness of the thoroughly original inquirer, an appreciation of the toil bestowed by others upon their work.

I am the more encouraged to hope that all those who do not hold scientific love of truth and progress to be the exclusive privilege of their own tendencies, will find in this new thoroughly revised edition of my Commentary much that is instructive, and much that is more correctly apprehended. The fact that I have still further pressed the Oriental learning of Fleischer and Wetzstein into the service of Biblical science will not be unwelcome to my readers. But that I have also laid Jewish investigators under contribution is due to my desire to see the partition wall between Synagogue and Church broken down. The exposition of Scripture has not only to serve the Church of the present, but also to help in building up the Church of the future. In this spirit I commend the present work to the grace and blessing of the God of the history of redemption.

Delitzsch.

Erlangen, 7th July 1867.

Note on HWHY

Jahve is (1) the traditional pronunciation, and (2) the pronunciation to be presupposed in accordance with the laws of formation and of vowel sounds. It is the traditional, for Theodoret and Epiphanius transcribe . The mode of pronunciation (not ), on the contrary, is the reproduction of the form of the name , and the mode of pronunciation of the form of the name , which although occurring only in the Old Testament in composition, had once, according to traces that can be relied on, an independent existence. Also the testimonies of the Talmud and post-talmudical writings require the final sound to be , and the corresponding name by which God calls Himself, , is authentic security for this ending. When it is further considered that (whence ) according to analogous contractions has grown out of , and not out of , and that the Hebrew language exhibits no proof of any transition from to which would not at the same time be a transition from the masculine to the feminine, it must be conceded that the pronunciation Jahve is to be regarded as the original pronunciation. The mode of pronunciation Jehova has only come up within the last three hundred years; our own Jahava [in the first edition] was an innovation. We now acknowledge the patristic , and hope to have another opportunity of substantiating in detail what is maintained in this prefatory note.

Note by the Translator

Any justification of the retention of the exact orthography of the author, explained above, ought to be needless. The J has been retained, inasmuch as this representative of the Hebrew Jod or Yod is become thoroughly naturalized in our Scripture names although wrongly pronounced (compare as an exception to this the y sound of the j in the word Hallelujah, which may perhaps be accounted for by the Greek form of the word adopted in our version of the New Testament). Although the quiescent final h (He) has been, with Dr. Delitzsch, omitted here, it is still retained in other Scripture names in accordance with the customary orthography.

The Hebrew numbering of the verses is followed in the text of each Psalm, and in the references generally. In a few instances only, where the difference between the Hebrew and the English divisions might prove perplexing to the English reader, both are given; e.g., Lev. 6:5 [12], Joe. 4:[3]3. To the student Baers critical text of the Psalter (Liber Psalmorum Hebraicus. Textum masorethicum accuratius quam adhuc factum est expressit, brevem de accentibus metricis institutionem praemisit, notas criticas adjecit S. Baer. Praefatus est Fr. Delitzsch. 1861. Lipsiae, Drffling et Franke. Cr. 8vo, pp. xiv. 134), often referred to by Dr. Delitzsch, will be found to be a useful companion to this Commentary, and more particularly as illustrating the pointings and accentuation adopted or mentioned in the notes.

It is almost superfluous to say that it has been altogether impracticable to follow Dr. Delitzsch in his acrostic reproduction of the Alphabetical Psalms. F. B. Elland, 31st January 1871.

Introduction to the Psalter

.

BASIL

1. Position of the Psalter among the Hagiographa, and More Especially among the Poetical Books

The Psalter is everywhere regarded as an essential part of the Kethubim or Hagiographa; but its position among these varies. It seems to follow from Luke 24:44 that it opened the Kethubim in the earliest period of the Christina era.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Also from 2 Macc. 2:13, where appears to be the designation of the according to their beginning; and from Philo, De vita contempl. (opp. II 475 ed. Mangey), where he makes the following distinction .]

The order of the books in the Hebrew MSS of the German class, upon which our printed editions in general use are based, is actually this: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and the five Megilloth. But the Masora and the MSS of the Spanish class begin the Kethubim with the Chronicles which they awkwardly separate from Ezra and Nehemiah, and then range the Psalms, Job, Proverbs and the five Megilloth next.[footnoteRef:2] [2: In all the Masoretic lists the twenty four books are arranged in the following order: 1) ; 2) ; 3) ; 4) (also ); 5) ; 6) ; 7) ; 8) ; 9) ; 10) ; 11) ; 12) ; 13) ; 14) ; 15) ; 16) ; 17) ; 18) ; 19) ; 20) ; 21) (); 22) (); 23) ; 24) . The Masoretic abbreviation for the three pre-eminently poetical books is accordingly, not but (in agreement with their Talmudic order) (as also in Chajug), vid., Elia Levita, Masoreth ha-Masoreth p. 19. 73 (ed. Ven. 1538) [ed. Ginsburg, 1867, p. 120, 248].]

And according to the Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b) the following is the right order: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs; the Book of Ruth precedes the Psalter as its prologue, for Ruth is the ancestor of him to whom the sacred lyric owes its richest and most flourishing era. It is undoubtedly the most natural order that the Psalter should open the division of the Kethubim, and for this reason: that, according to the stock which forms the basis of it, it represents the time of David, and then afterwards in like manner the Proverbs and Job represent the Chokma-literature of the age of Solomon. But it is at once evident that it could have no other place but among the Kethubim.

The codex of the giving of the Law, which is the foundation of the old covenant and of the nationality of Israel, as al