tinguished scholar also brings forward as another argument for the antiquity of the poem, a circumstance which seems to me to decide nothing; viz. that the number of Israelites capable of serving in war is stated in v. 8, at forty thousand. This, he says, is contradictory to Num. 1: 45 seq. where the number is stated at more than six hundred thousand; and since he regards the book of Numbers as a later compilation, his inference is, that the latter number has been exaggerated by popular tradition, and that the former one is therefore more probably correct. But without entering at length into the merits of the question, it is sufficient for our present purpose to remark, that v. 8 does not profess to specify the whole number of warriors in Israel; but simply gives a round number, and by poetical amplification a very large one, among whom no arms were to be found; in order to indicate strongly the destitution of the Israelites in this respect. But leaving this argument out of the question, we may safely of affirm that the doubts in regard to the antiquity of the song Deborah, as being coeval with the events therein celebrated, have no solid foundation to support them. The second point to which I have above alluded, regards the poetical rhythm of the Hebrew in this song. As a general principle we must assume, that the poetry of the Hebrews had no regular measure of words and syllables; or at least, if it had such a measure, all attempts to discover it have been in vain. Still, we perceive in some of the Psalms, and especially in Ps. cxx-cxxxII. or the so called Psalms of Degrees, a species of rhythm, depending on the position of the words, or rather on the repetition of an important word in one line at or near the beginning of the next line. The same feature we find to exist to Thus in verse 7. a very great extent in the Song of Deborah. So also in vv. 19, 21, 23, 24. In v. 25 the second orixos is wholly contained in the first; as is also the third in part. But the most striking instance of this rhythm is in v. 30. Whether this constituted a fixed species of rhythm among the Hebrews, and especially whether it is that which is designated by the term nibsan or Song of Degrees, is a question the discussion of which does not belong here. Gesenius has broached this opinion, (see his Lex. art. 2; Allgem. Lit. Zeitung, 1812, No. 205,) and De Wette has adopted it. The only object of mentioning the subject here, is to point out the extent to which this feature is found in the poem under consideration. NOTES. These words have been בִּפְרוֹעַ פְּרָעוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל .2 VERSE a crux interpretum in every age. The Vatican copy of the Septuagint has απεκαλύφθη ἀποκάλυμμα ἐν ̓Ισραήλ, a revelation has been revealed in Israel, a version which certainly stands in no connexion whatever with the context. The Hebrew word does indeed mean to uncover, Deut. 5: 18; and in this respect such a rendering is at least nearer to the original than that of the Vulgate, which gives the sense of the whole verse thus: qui sponte obtulistis de Israel animas vestras ad periculum. In what way the idea ad periculum can be made out from the Hebrew words ais ie, it is beyond the power of criticism to determine. A somewhat nearer approach to a meaning resting on critical grounds, is made in the version of Luther; which is followed also by Le Clerc, Michaelis, and Justi. In Luther it stands thus: dass Israel wieder frey ist geworden. Le Clerc translates: Israele in libertatem adserto, or literally, cum liberarentur libertates in Israel. Michaelis has: dass Israel die Banden zerrissen. The ground of this version lies in the fact, that the verb sometimes signifies to let loose, to free from restraint, e. g. Ex. 32: 25. Prov. 29: 18. But then this is always in a bad sense; and there is moreover no instance in the Hebrew where the noun is employed in any corresponding sense. The objection to this version is its harshness; and besides it does not suit the context. Another and still better supported meaning is that of our English version, for the avenging of Israel. This comes from the Syriac, which is also followed by the Arabic of the Polyglott, and gives the sense according to the Aramaean usage of ya, i. q. Dp, viz. to avenge ; \};} \;021; 12ausiasɔ, pro vindicta qua vindicatus est Israel. This is also adopted by Köhler. But here Israel is made the subject; which is not the case in the Hebrew. In order to do this, the prefix ≥ must be neglected, contrary to all critical rules. As it stands in our English version, Jehovah is by implication the subject; but this takes place only by an inversion of the whole verse. The ob jection of Schnurrer, viz. that the subject must thus be sought for in a subsequent clause, would here seem to be valid; especially as there is here an intervening clause with a different subject. We come then at last to the sense given above in the translation, that the leaders led in Israel. This is expressed by Schnurrer thus: quod imperio fungi voluerint duces in Israële; in which he is followed by Hollmann: quod imperarunt imperatores in Israël. Herder adopts the same sense in his "Briefe": dass angeführet die Führer Israëls. Schnurrer was the first to propose this version in modern times; although it is found in the Alexandrine Codex of the Septuagint, with which also Theodotion coincides: ἐν τῷ ἄρξασθαι ἀρχηγοὺς ἐν ̓Ισραήλ. The propriety of this mode of rendering appears from the usus loquendi in respect to both and ; from the suitableness of it to the context; and from the fact that the verse thus becomes parallel to another passage in this very poem. To begin with. This word occurs only twice in the singular in the Hebrew Bible; viz. Num. 6: 5. Ez. 44: 20; and signifies in both instances the principal lock or locks of hair; derived probably from the sense of the verb, to uncover, especially the head, by cutting or tearing off the hair, Num. 10: 6. 21: 10. In the plural the word occurs only twice, viz. in the verse before us and in Deut. 32: 42. In this latter passage God says: "I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, From the blood of the slain and of the captives, Here we must inquire, what are then the nip of the enemy? Assuredly not locks of hair, which would make no sense; and still less depilated, capitis nudati, which the Vulgate has, and for which there is no authority whatever. Neither can it be avengings, or revengings, as our English version has it, from the Aramaean sense of given above; a meaning at utter variance with the context. The antithetic nature of the parallelism evidently shows here, that ni designates the most distinguished part of the hostile community, in contrast to the slain and captives. We might therefore safely adopt the rendering of the Septuagint here, from the nature of the case, without further inquiry, viz. dozovres, leaders, rulers. But we are not restricted by any such necessity; for the analogy of the cognate languages supports this sense. In Deut. 16: 18, Onkelos translates the Heb., officers, by 7, a word from the same root as nie; and in Arabic the noun 501 is فرع summum et vertex rei, and signifies also caput et princeps familiae, populi.* We may remark too that the Hebrew name for the Egyptian kings,, Pharaoh, comes from the same root. This word in the Coptic is Orpo, and with the article, Пorрo porpo, and signifies king; and the Hebrews doubtless in adopting it into their own language, gave it a form which preserved, as nearly as possible, the original signification of the name; just as they have done with the name of Moses, and many others, to which a Hebrew etymology has been thus adapted. From all these circumstances we are warranted in assigning to in the case before us, the meaning rulers, leaders. The plural here takes the feminine form; as is frequently the case in regard to the nomina muneris in Hebrew, as well as in Syriac and Arabic.t Having thus settled the meaning of nie, we might at once assume that the verb is to be taken in the same sense. But here also we have the support of the Arabic, in which ε signifies summum cepit vel tenuit, superavit alios nobilitate, pulchritudine, etc. See Hollmann in loc. + Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 468. 879. The usus loquendi of this clause having been thus made out, we proceed to shew that the version above given is suitable to the context. Israel had long been sunk in despondency, and was incapable of making an effort to throw off his chains. Hence the prophetess begins with a burst of gratitude to God, that the nation had once more roused itself to action. The second clause refers, by common consent, to the people, who spontaneously came forward to the war; what then could be more suitable or natural, than that the first clause should contain a reference to the princes and rulers of the people, who did the same? We see in the case of Barak how unwilling they were to lead the way; and the same fact is asserted in v. 7. That this unwillingness was overcome, both on the part of the rulers and of the people, the prophetess makes the opening subject of her song of praise. In this way too this verse becomes in a manner parallel to v. 9, which is to be regarded as a poetical repetition, serving to shew strongly the former despondency and present exultation of the prophetess. It is a safe rule in the interpretation of Hebrew poetry, that wherever a parallelism of differ ent members of the same poem can naturally be made out, such parallelism caeteris paribus is to be assumed. The remainder of the verse presents no difficulty. The form 2 is Inf. Hithp. which in Hebrew and in the cognate languages expresses the idea to offer or present one's self, particularly, for military service; or more literally to impel one's self to do any thing, from the form of Kal, to impel, induce. The whole verse then may be regarded as an exclamation to give praise to God, that in the oppressed and afflicted state of the nation, both rulers and people had at length the boldness to rise and assert the violated liberties of their country. VERSE 3. The words and , kings and princes, may here be understood of the princes of Israel; and then it is merely a declaration to them, that the prophetess is about to begin a song of triumph, in which it is implied that they should join. This however would seem to be a feeble sense of the verse. Much more bold and forcible is the strain, when we refer these words to the kings of the Canaanites, the inveterate enemies of Israel, over whom or whose allies the people are now celebrating a triumph. The song then assumes a tone of lofty defiance: 'I, even I, a feeble woman, celebrate your overthrow.' These same Hebrew words are ap |