The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Samuel — Section 517

EXPOSITION. CHAPTER XXII. important point. n may be IP.Sked, then-Why should we notice them e.t a.II? And wl.iy DA:vm's PSALM OF Tlu.NXSGITING. urge them upon the e.ttention of scholars? This song, which is identical with Pe. The a.newer is that there exist fie.we and xviii., though with many verbal differences, blemiehel! in the Maesoretio, that is, the is so univers&lly acknowledged as e. genuine ordinary Hebrew, text, 1md that the removal composition of King David, that the objeo• of them is prevented by the ·strange idea. tions ta.ken by one or two critics serve only which accords infallibility to the,Mo.ssoritea, to give us greater security by reminding us and will not concede to the far more difficuU that the other side has been oe.refully argued. problem of the ancient Hebrew text the.I The differences between its form here and which is granted as a. mo.tter of course to in the Book of Psalms suggest many im- the comparatively modern Greek text of the portaut oonsideni.tions with regard to textual New Testament. And thus the Old Testa- criticism. From the absence of me.nuscripts, ment is neglected, and left outside that oare- we have very soe.nty means of judging of ful and llli.nute study so le.viably expended the correctness of the ordinary Hebrew text. on the New, and so rich in useful results. We have, indeed, abunde.nt proof that the Of the date when David wroul this psalm Jews took extreme care of their sacred text there can be little doubt. •It w~s at the m the early centuries of our era: but we close of hie first great series of viotories; ~ftcr nevertheless find, most frequently in names, Toi, the Hittite King. of Hamatb, bad sent mistakes which have a.risen from the care- to him e.n embassy of oongratula.tion (eh. lessness of scribes, and especially from the viii. 9, 10), referred to very triumphantly in confusion by them of similar letters. Thus vers. 45, 46. But there is no trace in it of the Sibbechai of eh. xxi. 18 becomes Me- the soi::row e.nd shame that clouded over his bu.n,uii in eh. x:riii. 27, owing to some scribe latter days ; e.nd no man whose conscience having mistaken two letters in the name. was ste.ined with sins so dark as those ·or And e.s the similarity between them exists, adultery and murder could h'e.ve written not in the old Hebrew writing, but in the words so strongly e.sserting his integrity and square character substituted e.fter the exile, the cleanness of hi.a hands as .a.re found in the conf11Sion must be subsequent to that vers. 21-25. The psalm belongs to David's dat.e. In comparing the two texts of this happiest time, when he had won for Israel psalm, we find similar inste.nces of confusion security and empire. H is 'written from of letters in vers. 11, 4.2, 43: we find words firllt to last in o. tone of jubilant exultation, trauspoeed in vera. 5, 6 : and clanses repeateil caused, e.s we may well believe, by Nathan's or omitted in vers. 13, 14. In short, e.ll the e.cceptance of bis purpose to build the temple, phenomena with which we -are familiar in and by the solemn appointment of De.vid as the textwi.l criticism of the New Testament the theocratic king. If it were arranged are also found here. And may we not add according to time and matter, it wouiti bo that they end in the same result ? The placed immediately after eh. viii., as·. 'it. is general sense e.nd meaning remain much evidently David's thanksgiving for the the slime. Tue vu.riations of reading do not benefits and bl8.l!siogs just promised to huu uffect tl,e teaclliug of Holy Scriptw·e on e.ny • and Lis seed. en, XXII, 1-61.] THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 531