صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of verses. Such groups may conveniently be called stanzas or strophes, but the terms must not be supposed to imply that the same metrical or rhythmical structure recurs in each, as in Greek or Latin poetry. The strophes in a Psalm do not even necessarily consist of the same number of lines or verses.

Such divisions are sometimes clearly marked by a refrain, as in Pss. xlii—xliii, xlvi, lvii: or by alphabetical arrangement, as in cxix: or by Selah, denoting probably a musical interlude, as in Pss. iii and iv. But more frequently there is no external mark of the division, though it is clearly indicated by the structure and contents of the Psalm, as in Ps. ii.

Alphabetic or Acrostic Psalms.

Eight or nine Psalms1 present various forms of alphabetic structure (Pss. ix, x, xxv, xxxiv, xxxvii, cxi, cxii, cxix, cxlv). In cxi and cxii each letter begins a line, and the lines are arranged in eight distichs and two tristichs.

In Pss. xxv, xxxiv, cxlv, Prov. xxxi, Lam. iv, each letter begins a distich, in Lam. i, ii, a tristich. In Ps. xxxvii each letter begins a pair of verses, commonly containing four, sometimes five, lines. In Lam. iii each verse in a stanza of three verses, and in Ps. cxix each verse in a stanza of eight verses, begins with the same letter, and the letters are taken in regular succession.

Such an arrangement, artificial though it seems, does not necessarily fetter a poet more than an elaborate metre or rhyme. It is not to be regarded as 'a compensation for the vanished spirit of poetry.' It was probably intended as an aid to memory, and is chiefly employed in Psalms of a proverbial character to connect detached thoughts, or when, as in Ps. cxix and in Lamentations, the poet needs some artificial bond to link together a number of variations upon one theme.

The elaborate development of the system in Lamentations proves that alphabetic structure is not in itself a proof of a very late date2.

1 Also Lam. i-iv: Prov. xxxi. 10-31. Traces of alphabetic structure have been pointed out in Nah. i. 2-10: and the original of Ecclesiasticus li. 13--30 was alphabetic. See Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira, pp. lxxvi ff.

The early Roman poet Ennius wrote acrostics (Cicero, de Divina

CHAPTER VII.

THE HEBREW TEXT, THE ANCIENT VERSIONS,

AND THE ENGLISH VERSIONS.

1. The Hebrew Text1. A few words on the character of the Hebrew Text are necessary in order to justify the occasional departures from it, which will be met with in this commentary.

The extant Hebrew MSS. of the O.T. are all comparatively recent. The oldest of which the age is known with certainty is the St Petersburg MS. which is dated A.D. 9162; the majority are of the 12th to the 16th centuries. They all present substantially the same text3, commonly called the Massoretic Text. Thus while we possess MSS. of the N.T. written less than three centuries after the date of the earliest of the books, our oldest MS. of the O.T. is more than ten centuries posterior to the date of the latest of the books which it contains; and while our MSS. of the N.T. present a great variety of readings, those of the O.T. are practically unanimous in supporting the same text.

This unanimity was long supposed to be due to the jealous care with which the Jewish scribes had preserved the sacred tione, ii. 54, § 111); and they are said to have been invented in Greece by the comedian Epicharmus (B.C. 540-450). We may compare the alliteration, which is a common feature of early poetry. Alliterative and acrostic poetry was written in Assyria and Babylonia. See Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1895, p. 131.

1 For an outline of the history of the Hebrew text see the writer's Divine Library of the Old Testament, Lect. iii.

2 Dr Ginsburg (Introd. to the Heb. Bible, p. 469) places an undated Ms. in the British Museum somewhat earlier, c. 820-850 A.D.

The variations between them are (roughly speaking) not greater than the variations between the different editions of the A. V. which have appeared since 1611, and they concern for the most part unimportant points of orthography.

Massora means (1) tradition in general: (2) specially, tradition concerning the text of the O.T., and in particular the elaborate system of rules and memoria technica by which the later scribes sought to guard the text from corruption. Those who devoted themselves to this study were called 'masters of Massōrā,' or 'Massoretes'; and the term 'Massoretic' is applied to the text which their labours were designed to preserve.

PSALMS

ness.

text from the earliest times. But careful examination makes it clear that this is not the case. Since the rise of the schools of the 'Massoretes,' in the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., the text has, no doubt, been preserved with scrupulous exactBut the recension which they adopted, whether originally derived from a single MS., as some suppose, or from a comparison of MSS. held in estimation at the time, unquestionably contains not a few errors, which had crept in during the long course of its previous history'. The proof of this lies in the following facts :—

(1) There are many passages in which the Massoretic Text cannot be translated without doing violence to the laws of grammar, or is irreconcilable with the context or with other passages.

(2) Parallel passages (e.g. Ps. xviii and 2 Sam. xxii) differ in such a way as to make it evident that the variations are due partly to accidental mistakes in transcription, partly to intentional revision.

(3) The Ancient Versions represent various readings, which in many cases bear a strong stamp of probability, and often lessen or remove the difficulties of the Massoretic Text.

The Massoretic Text as a whole is undoubtedly superior to any of the Ancient Versions: but we are amply justified in calling in the aid of those Versions, and in particular the Septuagint, wherever that text appears to be defective: and even where it is not in itself suspicious, but some of the Ancient Versions offer a different reading, that reading may deserve to be taken into account. In some few cases, where there is reason to

1 The history of the Hebrew text may be divided into four periods. (1) The first of these periods was marked by the exclusive use of the archaic character: (2) the second, from the time of Ezra to the destruction of Jerusalem, saw the archaic character completely superseded by the square character, as the Hebrew language was superseded by Aramaic : (3) in the third period, from the Fall of Jerusalem to the end of the fifth century, the consonantal text was fixed: (4) in the fourth period, the exegetical tradition of the proper method of reading the text was stereotyped by the addition of the vowels, and an elaborate system of rules was invented to secure the accurate transmission of the text even in the minutest particulars.

suspect corruption anterior to all extant documentary authorities, it may even be allowable to resort to conjectural emendation, and such emendations will occasionally be mentioned.

The accidental corruptions to which all ancient texts were exposed in the process of transmission must of course be carefully distinguished from the intentional alterations to which the Psalms would be especially liable. The original text of a Psalm, like that of the hymns in modern hymn books, was doubtless often altered to adapt it for liturgical use. Archaisms would be modernised: some Psalms would be abbreviated; others would be amplified; in some cases (e.g. 1 Chr. xvi, Ps. cviii) portions of Psalms were combined. A comparison of Ps. xviii with 2 Sam. xxii appears to shew that, exactly as might be expected, peculiar forms were replaced by those in ordinary use, unusual constructions were simplified, archaisms and obscure expressions were explained. The processes which in this instance can be traced doubtless went on elsewhere, though to what extent it is impossible to say.

Two further points must be mentioned here in order to explain some of the notes:

(1) Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, was originally written without any vowels, except such long vowels as were represented by consonants. In the earlier stages of the language even these were sparingly used. The present elaborate system of vowel marks or 'points,' commonly called the 'Massoretic punctuation' or 'vocalisation,' was not reduced to writing until the seventh or eighth century A.D. It stereotyped the pronunciation and reading of the O.T. then current, and in many respects represents a far older tradition. But in a vowelless, or as it is called 'unpointed,' text, many words may be read in different ways, and the Massoretic punctuation does not appear in all cases to give the true way of reading the con

sonants.

(2) In some passages the traditional method of reading (Q'rē) did not agree with the consonants of the written text (K'thibh). In such cases the Massoretes did not alter the text,. but appended a marginal note, giving the consonants with which the vowels shewn in the text were to be read. It should

be clearly understood that the Cre or marginal reading is the accepted reading of the Jewish textual tradition. But internal evidence, and the evidence of the Ancient Versions, lead us to prefer sometimes the Q'rē and sometimes the K'thibh. See for example Ps. xxiv. 4, where A.V. and R.V. rightly follow the Kthibh, and desert the Jewish tradition: or Ps. c. 3, where A.V. unfortunately followed the K'thibh, and R.V. has happily taken the Q'rē.

ii. The Ancient Versions of the O.T. These possess a fresh interest for the English reader, since the R. V. has given occasional references to them in its margin.

(i) The Septuagint1. The oldest and most valuable of them is the Greek Version, commonly called the SEPTUAGINT (Sept. or LXX), or Version of the Seventy Elders. It derives its name from the tradition that the translation of the Pentateuch was made by seventy or seventy-two elders, despatched from Jerusalem to Alexandria at the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 283247). But the 'Letter of Aristeas,' on which this story rests, is undoubtedly a forgery, and all that can be asserted about the origin of the Septuagint is that it was made (1) in Egypt, and probably at Alexandria, (2) at different times and by different hands during the third and second centuries B.C., (3) before the vowel-points had been added to the Hebrew text, or that text had finally taken its present form.

The Pentateuch was probably translated first under the earlier Ptolemies and the grandson of Jesus the son of Sirach, about 130 B.C., knew and used the version of the Hagiographa as well as of the Law and the Prophets. This, it may be assumed, included the Psalter.

The character of the LXX varies greatly in different parts of the O.T. The work of pioneers in the task of translation, with no aids of grammar and lexicon to help them, naturally presents many imperfections. Yet not seldom it gives a valuable clue to the meaning of obscure words, or suggests certain corrections of

1 For a full account of the LXX, the Ancient Versions based upon it, and the later Greek Versions, see Swete's admirable Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900).

See above, p. xlvi f.

« السابقةمتابعة »