etc. after the analogy of on; and this sense of n has been compared to the yovoa enn, the golden verses, of Pythagoras, or to the χρυσαὶ γνῶμαι of Democritus. But why the six Psalms (XVI. LVI.—LX.) having the title in question, should be golden rather than many others in the book of Psalms, one would find it difficult to say. Most evidently they are not superior to others in the excellence of their composition, or in the nature of their subjects. Some of them, indeed, (as Ps. xvI.) have a most exalted theme, the triumph of Christ over death and hell; but some other Psalms also have kindred themes; and many of them are more attractive, considered merely in a rhetorical point of view, than Psalms LVI.-LX.

Inviting therefore as the version golden is, at first view, and especially so because of its analogy to bn, we cannot see any good reason why this title should have been given, with designed significancy, to all the Psalms which bear it.

As to the opinion of some ancient Rabbins, and of Aquila and Symmachus, who divided into two words, and made of it and on, humble and upright, or humble and blameless; it does not deserve refutation. If we may first make the text into what we please, and then transpose its order, it is true enough that any critical difficulties whatever can be managed without much trouble. These critics have done both; for 72 and are not ; and if they were adjectives (as they make them to be), they must of course stand after 77, which these writers make them qualify, and not before it, as they now do; see Heb. Grammar § 452.

There remains, however, three other suppositions in respect to t, which must be briefly examined.

Among the ancients, there is a remarkable union in respect to the sense of it. The Seventy and Theodotion translate it ornioyoaqia, inscription on a monument, epitaph, Grabschrift, as Michaelis renders it, without being, however, entirely authorised to do so by the word ornλoygagia. The Vulgate and Jerome (Jerome did not translate anew the book of Psalms), render it titulus, or inscriptio tituli, which mean the same as the Greek ornioyoaqia. Jerome has commented on this meaning: "Tres sunt tituli, qui scribuntur: Unus super tumulos mortuorum; alius, in liminibus civitatum, vel domorum; tertius, in victoria regis." In respect to this last, which was an inscription on some durable monument, celebrating the victory of a king, Jerome adds: "Hic ergo (in titulo Ps. xvI.) de titulo victoriae

regis dicit;" i. e. the Psalmist speaks of the victory of the king Messiah, and D is designed to shew that such is the subject matter of the Psalm.

Even the Chaldee interpreter seems to have so understood

inscriptio recta, or, גְלִיפָא רִיצָא having rendered it , מִכְתָּם

inscriptio erecta, as Michaelis and Rosenmüller translate it, with some latitude indeed, but possibly ad sensum.

Could now all these interpreters, each having a knowledge of the original Hebrew, have so much mistaken the meaning of ? Could they, in merely guessing, have all guessed so much alike? I must confess, with Michaelis, that I do not well see how to get away from the evidence that does mean inscriptio, or titulus; nor from the opinion of Jerome, that it is here a titulus victoriae. I am the more embarrassed in any attempt to throw away this interpretation, because the other Psalms which have in their title, are all invixia, Psalms of victory, in one form or another; as the reader may easily see, by turning to them. Certainly, this is a circumstance which deserves notice.

To all this we may add, that the opinion of recent critics, viz. that bra is equivalent to a writing (Is. 38: 9), and especially song, would nearly coincide with the above oτnloyoαgia. The ground of this last opinion, held by Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Winer, and others, is, that the letters and are frequently exchanged in words of the same import; e. g. 7177

and זְמָן ; fat, מְרִיא and בָּרִיא ; the name of a river, דִימוֹן and

Chald. time, etc. If it apply to D, it would make but a small departure from the version of the ancient translators in question. Rosenmüller, indeed, objects to the meaning orŋAoyoapia, because he thinks that it is not probable so long compositions as Psalms XVI. LVI.-LX. were inscribed on brass or stone; Comm. in Psalm. I. p. LI. But is it necessary to suppose them actually to be inscribed? I take the title to mean, what might be inscribed, a triumphal song, an inuviniov. And even if the title means an actual inscription, (would it not be strange, however, to put in such a sense, on an actual ornios?) yet I do not feel the force of his objection. Look at the inscriptions on the monuments of ancient Egypt, e. g. the one found at Rosetta, which gave rise to the discovery of a hieroglyphic alphabet; and it is easy to decide, that the objection of Rosenmüller cannot have much weight.

I must subscribe, then, on the whole, to the orηloyqaqia of

1

the Seventy, as the proper translation of D. But whether it was placed here by the author of the Psalm, in order to designate the matter of the Psalm; or whether it was designed as a name of the measure of his verse, or of the music to which it was set, or of the musical instrument by which the singing of it was to be accompanied, (many Psalms have such inscriptions,) it would be difficult to say. Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and others have regarded the last supposition as the most probable. So thought Calvin. I do not see any imperious reason for dissent; at least, no certain and well-grounded reason can be given. Even if we translate br by ornλoyoaqia or iлiviniov, as I am inclined to do, it does not stand in the way of this supposition.

We may conclude, then, that the most probable sense of the word 2, is ornioyoaqia or inscriptio; but whether it is intended to designate the condition of the writing, the character or subject of it, or the measure or music of it-who can tell? No one with certainty; yet from the fact that all the Psalms which bear this title, are, in one form or another, invinsa or triumphal songs, it does seem most probable that Jerome has hit the mark in his titulus victoriae.

, genitivus auctoris, as grammarians say. So authorship is denoted throughout the Psalms. On this ground, we may assign Ps. LXXH. to Solomon as its author, because it has b prefixed to it. The Hebrew often employed before a genitive, i. e. to indicate that a noun held the relation of a genitive case, either after some noun expressed, or some one understood. When he wished to avoid a repetition of the status constructus too often, he put in a genitive designated by. The most common use of in such a relation, is to prefix it to nouns where possession or belonging to is indicated, ass, the tents of the robbers; 2, son of Jesse; or where time is designated, as in the 600th year of Noah's life; or where another word intervenes after a construct form, which is

דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל more intimately connected with it, as

the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. There are other niceties of construction in regard to this use of, which are well exhibited by Ewald, in his "Hebrew grammar. The idea that a genitive case in Hebrew, can be made only by the status constructus, is altogether groundless. This is the dependent genitive, so to speak; while that formed by is a kind of independent genitive; as in the case before us, which is a genitive, without a previous construct state. As to b, it may be construed in

dependently of 7; and probably it should be so construed here, i. e. it should be regarded as the title of the Psalm per se, for in Psalms LVI.-LIX. inclusively, stands after 777, thus shewing plainly that it has no definite relation to it. So here, the probable word implied before is 2.

For the sake of the young student, who is anxious to extend his acquaintance with the grammatical niceties of the Hebrew, it may be remarked here, that the genitive with is a kind of free or unshackled one. Thus the Hebrew could say, either

,Such a choice in poetry אֹהֲבִים לָנוּם loving slumber, or לָנוּם

D1, .

was doubtless a matter of great convenience. So he could make a genitive independently of any preceding noun, as in our text, and say simply of David, when 7 would have meant nothing more than David. In the same way the Arabians use a auctoris. In the last edition of Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, however, all these cases are solved by giving to the sense of through, by, when it stands before the efficient cause of any thing; a solution, which, if well grounded, commends itself to all by its simplicity.

....

, preserve me, O God! for in thee do I seek a refuge. The verb is in the imperative here, notwithstanding the Methegh after the Qamets, and is to be read shomrē-ni (not shā-mɛrē-ni); Heb. Gramm. § 66 note. Such a remark may be deemed superfluous; but as an apology for it, I observe, that no less a critic than Michaelis here reads sha-merenī, and makes a new conjugation (2), like the third conjugation in Arabic, in order to get at this form in the perfect tense. He could not have noted the cases of Qamets with Methegh, where it is clearly to be read as short o; see the note referred to above.

As to the meaning of ", it may, with equal fidelity to the Hebrew, be rendered preserve me, or watch over me, keep me in remembrance. Either of these senses will fit the passage. We may suppose the Saviour, in prospect of the agonies before him, to be filled, for the moment, with distressing anxiety, like to that which he endured in the garden of Gethsemane, and to utter his earnest supplication that God would regard him, or remember him, or watch over him, i. e. so regard him as to be a very present help in time of need.' It matters little which of these versions we choose. The supplication goes to the simple point of being so watched over as to be sustained, and kept from sinking, when the hour of trial should come. And surely nothing

can be more appropriate than such a prayer in the mouth of the Saviour, under circumstances such as have been noted.

To render, I have trusted in thee, does not give the full force of the Hebrew original. means to seek a refuge, to seek protection in any one, by resorting to him. The colouring of the Hebrew, therefore, is here of a nicer shade, it is more appropriate to the circumstances of the speaker, than what is represented by our general word trust.

If the reader feels any objection to such a prayer being uttered by the Saviour, he is desired to answer the question, Whether the Saviour did actually pray at all? And if he did, was his prayer a request that God would grant any thing? And if so, was this acknowledging his dependence for the thing? In other words, and in order to remove all difficulty, had Jesus truly and properly a human nature? If so, then so far as this was concerned, he was dependent; he prayed, he suffered, he lived, he died, as human nature must. He did not die as God over all, but as a man of sorrows.' He did not pray as God over all, but as one 'poor and needy,' although possessing all things; as one who, having truly taken our nature upon him, felt its wants, was agitated with its fears, and truly suffered its sorrows. And if any one could ever sincerely aver, that he went to God for protection, or looked to him for refuge, Jesus above all others could do this.

Verse 2. 2, an offendiculum criticorum to past and present interpreters. The sum of all that need to be said, may be briefly said. We may read it as it stands, in the 2 pers. fem. of the praeter tense, and suppose my soul to be understood; or we may point it, as of the first pers. sing. and translate it, I have said.

Most of the recent critics incline to the latter; and so almost all the ancients have translated it, as the Seventy, Jerome, the Syriac, the Arabic, the Vulgate, etc. The Chaldee alone has preserved the second person. Twenty of Kennicott's manuscripts also read 2. But with all this evidence before us, it seems to me that must be retained, by the sound laws of criticism. It is, as Schnurrer has justly observed, a sound law, that of two readings, the one is to be preferred which might most easily originate the other, but from which the other could not well be derived.' So here, it is very easy to see, how the ancient translators could render I have said, and how modern transcribers could write ; because it is so obviously ad