# Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume IV. Poetical Books

CLARKS
FOREIGN
THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
FOURTH SERIES.
VOL. XXIX.
Belitzsch’s Commentary on the Psalms.
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
1892.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.
NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
TORONTO : THE PRESBYTERIAN NEWS CO.
BIBLICAL COMMENTARY
ON
THE PSALMS.
BY
FRANZ DELITZSCH, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, LEIPSIG,
Translated from the German
(FROM THE SECOND EDITION, REVISED THROUGHOUT)
BY THE
REV. FRANCIS BOLTON, B.A.,
PRIZEMAN IN HEBREW AND NEW TESTAMANT GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
1892.
PREFACE.
SEVEN whole years have passed since the publication of my Commentar aber den Psalter (2 vols. 1859-60), and during this period large and important contributions have been made towards the exposition of the Psalms. Of Hupfeld’s Commentary the last two volumes (vol. iii., 1860; vol. iv., 1862) have appeared since the completion of my own. Hitzig’s (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, Béttcher’s Neue Kritische Aehrenlese, issued by Miihlau after the author’s death, has furnished valu- able contributions towards the exposition of the Psalms (Abth. 2, 1864); Von Ortenberg in the department of textual criti- cism (Zur Textkritik der Psalmen, 1861), and Kurtz in that of theolozy (Zur Theologie der Psalmen, in the Dorpater Zeitschrift, 1864-65), have promoted the interpretation of the Psalms; and side by side with these, Bohl’s Zwolf Messianische Psalmen (Twelve Messianic Psalms,” 1862) and Kamphausen’s ex- position of the Psalms in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk (1863) also claim attention.
I had therefore no lack of external inducements for the revision of my own Commentary; but I was also not uncon- scious of its defects. Despite all this, Hupfeld’s 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 inci- dentally gave expression to this feeling. On the 20th of October 1863 Hupfeld wrote to me, “I have only just seen your complaint of my judgment at the close of my work on the Psalms. The complaint 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 what- ever of this letter. I regarded it as a private matter between ourselves. Since, however, Riehm has transferred that judg- ment nnaltered to the second edition of the first volume of the Commentary of Hnpfeld, 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.
Hitzig’s 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 bnt 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 jndgment as that which Hnpfeld pronounced upon me, and which Ewald a few years later with very similar language pro- nonnced 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 be- stowed 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 יהוה.
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 Ἰαβέ. The mode of pronunciation Ἀϊά (not Ἰαβά), on the contrary, is the reproduction of the form of the name , and the mode of pronunciation Ἰαῶ of the form of the name יהו, which although occurring only in the Old Testament in composition, had once, according to traces that can be relied on, an independent
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 7 in the word “ Hallelajah,” which may perhaps be accounted for by the Greek form of the word adopted in our version of the New Testameut). Although the quiescent final & (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 2 few instances only, where the difference between the Hebrew and the English divisions might prove perplexing to the English reader, both are given ; ¢.g. Lev. vi. 5 [12], Joel iv. fiii.] 8. To the student Baer’s critical text of the Psalter (Liber Psalmorum Hebraicus. Textum masorethicum accuratius quam adhue factum est expressit, brevem de accentibus metricis institutionem premisit, notas criticas adjecit S. Baer. Profatus est Fr. Delitzsch. 1861. Lipsiw, Dorffling et Franke. Cr. 8vo, pp. xiv. 184), often referred to by Dr. Delitzsch, will be found to be a useful companion to this Commentary, and more particularly as illus- trating 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 repro- duction of the Alphabetical Psalms.
F. B.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALTER.
EXPOSITION OF THE PSALTER.
First Book of the Psalter, Ps. I.-XLI.
* Psalms I to LXI
* Psalms LXII to CL
* Proverbs
* Ecclesiastes
* Song of Songs