Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/994

 except J. Olshausen and Hupfeld, Even Hitzig observes (die Psalmen, i. p. 95): “There is no ground whatever for calling in question the Davidic authorship of the psalm, and therefore the statement made in the heading; and, in fact, there is all the more reason for adhering to it, because it is attested twice. The recurrence of the psalm as one of Davidic origin in 2 Samuel 22 is of some weight, since not the slightest suspicion attaches to any of the other songs of sayings attributed to David in the second book of Samuel (e.g., 2Sa 3:33-34; 2Sa 5:8; 2Sa 7:18-29; 2Sa 23:1-7). Moreover, the psalm is evidently ancient, and suited to the classical period of the language and its poetry. 2Sa 22:31 is quoted as early as Pro 30:5, and 2Sa 22:34 in Hab 3:19. The psalm was also regarded as Davidic at a very early period, as the ‘diaskeuast’ of the second book of Samuel met with the heading, which attributes the psalm to David. No doubt this opinion might be founded upon 2Sa 22:51; and with perfect justice if it were: for if the psalm was not composed by David, it must have been composed in his name and spirit; and who could have been this contemporaneous and equal poet?” Again, after quoting several thoroughly Davidic signs, he says at p. 96: “It is very obvious with how little justice the words of 2Sa 22:51, relating to 2Sa 7:12-16, 2Sa 7:26, 2Sa 7:29, have been pronounced spurious. Besides, the psalm can no more have concluded with למשׁיחו (2Sa 22:51) than with 2Sa 22:50; and if David refers to himself by name at the commencement in 2Sa 23:1, and in the middle in 2Sa 7:20, why should he not do the same at the close?” who, with hypercritical scepticism, dispute the Davidic origin of the psalm on subjective grounds of aesthetic taste. This psalm is found in the Psalter as Ps 18, though with many divergences in single words and clauses, which do not, however, essentially affect the meaning. Commentators are divided in opinion as to the relation in which the two different forms of the text stand to one another. The idea that the text of 2 Samuel. rests upon a careless copy and tradition must decidedly be rejected: for, on the one hand, by far the larger portion of the deviations in our text from that of the Psalter are not to be attributed to carelessness on the part of copyists, but are evidently alterations made with thoughtfulness and deliberation: e.g., the omission of the very first passage (2Sa 22:1), “I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength;” the change of צוּרי אלי (my God, my strength, or rock) into צוּרי אלהי (the God of my rock), as “the God of the rock” occurs again in 2Sa 22:47 of the text before us; or the substitution of ויּרא (He was seen, 2Sa 22:11) for ויּדא (He did fly), etc. On the other hand, the original reading has undoubtedly been retained in many passages of our text, whilst simpler and more common forms have been substituted in that of the Psalms; e.g., in v. 5,