Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/10



—~-—

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